NY bike path mayhem

On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 21:17:25 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 7:51:19 PM UTC-8, Ralph Barone wrote:
John B. wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 11:18:00 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 8:49:31 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/7/2017 10:01 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/7/2017 2:01 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 01:18:15 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 11/6/2017 9:44 PM, John B. wrote:

In short, your thesis that guns cause crime just isn't
correct.

Where did I say that was my thesis?

The
old adage that guns don't kill people, people kill
people, apparently
is correct.

In the U.S., people murder people mostly by using guns.
In most other
advanced countries, the murder rates are far lower, and
the gun murder
rates lower yet. You can't rationally pretend that the
availability of
guns is not a significant factor.


If there is a relationship between numbers of guns and gun
deaths then
why doesn't this relationship manifest itself in the U.S.
As I have
pointed out innumerable times states with very high gun
ownership
frequently have very low firearm homicide rates while
areas with
relatively low gun ownership frequently have very high
firearm
homicide rates.

So, based on actual numbers, no there doesn't appear to be a
relationship between gun ownership and firearm homicide
rates.

And as I've pointed out many times, try instead to
investigate the correlation between guns designed for
killing people and homicide rates. IOW, exclude long rifles
and shotguns designed and intended for killing game. Look
instead at guns designed to fire more than about ten shots
in a minute, and look at guns designed to be easily concealed.

Sparsely populated states with long-established hunting
cultures (e.g. Montana and Vermont) have large numbers of
hunting guns, and low gun homicide rates. And I've made it
clear many times that I'm pro-hunting and not at all against
guns designed for hunting.

Nobody hunts with AR-style rifles, unless it's a gun nut
trying to show it's not completely impossible. And nobody
needs to hunt with a rapid fire handgun.


There are 15,238 actual machine guns registered in your
State, Ohio.
http://chartsbin.com/view/1922

As with the barefoot plumber this week, most guys are normal
(by definition) and no trouble at all. When's the last time
you heard a Browning M2 in your neighborhood?

Hunting is a red herring and absolutely unrelated to the 2d
Amendment, as a review of the legislative history clearly
shows. The history of unarmed populations /in extremis/ is
also clear.

None of it is clear. If the Jews had been armed, they would have been
wiped out anyway. They were a minority population. The Nazis wiped out
most of Europe, including armed Free French and millions of Russians. I
can't think of any disarmed population that would have prevailed if it
only had arms. What would have happened in Cambodia? The smart people
with glasses form a militia?

I hate to intrude into your obviously well thought out arguments but I
was reminded of a country, way back in 1775, where a bunch of guys in
Massachusetts did in fact do battle with regular soldiers, apparently
with their own weapons. And they claimed to have beaten the Regulars
too :-)


Sure. Nearly 250 years ago, in a place that was weeks away from the "home
base" of those red coated assholes. Your analogy bodes well for when Mars
attacks us.

There was a continental congress that formed an army, got buy-in from a seasoned general, funding from France and declared independence. Concord and Lexington were skirmishes. Absent an organized army, the skirmishes would have been footnotes to British history, like the Whisky rebellion. The continental army was not a bunch of basement ******s with rifles -- the Bundy clan occupying a Federal bird sanctuary in Oregon -- and daddy not wanting to pay grazing fees to the Feds. WTF? These people give the Second Amendment a bad name.

-- Jay Beattie.

The first Continental Congress met from September 5 to October 26,
1774 and apparently organized an economic boycott of Great Britain in
protest and petitioned the King for a redress of grievances.

The "Battle of Lexington" was fought on 19 April 1775.

The Second Continental Congress convened on May 10, 1775, at
Philadelphia's State House, passing the resolution for independence
the following year on July 2, 1776, and publicly asserting the
decision two days later with the Declaration of Independence.
On June 14, 1775, the Second Continental Congress decided to proceed
with the establishment of a Continental Army for purposes of common
defense
--
Cheers,

John B.

Ralph Barone wrote:
John B. wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 11:18:00 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 8:49:31 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/7/2017 10:01 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/7/2017 2:01 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 01:18:15 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 11/6/2017 9:44 PM, John B. wrote:

In short, your thesis that guns cause crime just isn't
correct.

Where did I say that was my thesis?

The
old adage that guns don't kill people, people kill
people, apparently
is correct.

In the U.S., people murder people mostly by using guns.
In most other
advanced countries, the murder rates are far lower, and
the gun murder
rates lower yet. You can't rationally pretend that the
availability of
guns is not a significant factor.


If there is a relationship between numbers of guns and gun
deaths then
why doesn't this relationship manifest itself in the U.S.
As I have
pointed out innumerable times states with very high gun
ownership
frequently have very low firearm homicide rates while
areas with
relatively low gun ownership frequently have very high
firearm
homicide rates.

So, based on actual numbers, no there doesn't appear to be a
relationship between gun ownership and firearm homicide
rates.

And as I've pointed out many times, try instead to
investigate the correlation between guns designed for
killing people and homicide rates. IOW, exclude long rifles
and shotguns designed and intended for killing game. Look
instead at guns designed to fire more than about ten shots
in a minute, and look at guns designed to be easily concealed.

Sparsely populated states with long-established hunting
cultures (e.g. Montana and Vermont) have large numbers of
hunting guns, and low gun homicide rates. And I've made it
clear many times that I'm pro-hunting and not at all against
guns designed for hunting.

Nobody hunts with AR-style rifles, unless it's a gun nut
trying to show it's not completely impossible. And nobody
needs to hunt with a rapid fire handgun.


There are 15,238 actual machine guns registered in your
State, Ohio.
http://chartsbin.com/view/1922

As with the barefoot plumber this week, most guys are normal
(by definition) and no trouble at all. When's the last time
you heard a Browning M2 in your neighborhood?

Hunting is a red herring and absolutely unrelated to the 2d
Amendment, as a review of the legislative history clearly
shows. The history of unarmed populations /in extremis/ is
also clear.

None of it is clear. If the Jews had been armed, they would have been
wiped out anyway. They were a minority population. The Nazis wiped out
most of Europe, including armed Free French and millions of Russians. I
can't think of any disarmed population that would have prevailed if it
only had arms. What would have happened in Cambodia? The smart people
with glasses form a militia?

I hate to intrude into your obviously well thought out arguments but I
was reminded of a country, way back in 1775, where a bunch of guys in
Massachusetts did in fact do battle with regular soldiers, apparently
with their own weapons. And they claimed to have beaten the Regulars
too :-)


Sure. Nearly 250 years ago, in a place that was weeks away from the "home
base" of those red coated assholes. Your analogy bodes well for when Mars
attacks us.


I guess he’s not referring to the Boston Massacre. But in any case, the
red coated assholes were not in tanks calling in air support and scud
missiles. Semi-automatic weapons may be quite sufficient to murder large
numbers of innocent people but if the argument for them is to stand off the
army of a repressive US government then maybe Jays advice about changing
the government at the polls makes more sense.

I just saw the governor of Texas with a straight face say that the problem
in Texas was that the people in the church weren’t armed.



And what does this have to do with the US? If we don't trust our state
and federal governments, then we need to actually work on fixing
government and not stockpiling weapons. The notion that a bunch of
right-minded people armed to the teeth are going to over-throw the
fascists and mud-people and form some Ayn Rand utopia (illustrated by
Thomas Hart Benton) is lunatic. Insurrection by isolated populations
leads to Somalia not utopia.

Also, the Second Amendment echoed provisions in state constitutions
either allowing or requiring white, protestant male citizens to own guns
and to serve in colonial militias -- typically to fight Indians and
other aggressors. As an amendment, the provision acted as a limitation
on federal power. As applied to the states under Fourteenth Amendment,
it protects a claimed "fundamental right," although its not clear what
right is fundamental -- the right to own a smooth bore long-rifle? Have
a gun for service in a well-regulated state militia? There certainly is
no fundamental right to a 100 round semi-auto carbine suitable for
wiping out a church-full of parishioners.

At the state or colonial level, it was never "we need our guns because
the government is coming to get us . . . we're in trouble and must shoot
back!" The Founding Fathers trusted their colonial governments. They
were the colonial governments. If people don't trust their government,
then they need to get off their asses and get smart and get involved.
The revolution should be intellectual and should start with unplugging
anything Alt -- right or left -- and most of social media, except rec.bikes.non-tech.

-- Jay Beattie.





--
Cheers,

John B.









--
duane

On Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 11:04:33 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 21:17:25 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 7:51:19 PM UTC-8, Ralph Barone wrote:
John B. wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 11:18:00 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 8:49:31 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/7/2017 10:01 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/7/2017 2:01 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 01:18:15 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 11/6/2017 9:44 PM, John B. wrote:

In short, your thesis that guns cause crime just isn't
correct.

Where did I say that was my thesis?

The
old adage that guns don't kill people, people kill
people, apparently
is correct.

In the U.S., people murder people mostly by using guns.
In most other
advanced countries, the murder rates are far lower, and
the gun murder
rates lower yet. You can't rationally pretend that the
availability of
guns is not a significant factor.


If there is a relationship between numbers of guns and gun
deaths then
why doesn't this relationship manifest itself in the U.S.
As I have
pointed out innumerable times states with very high gun
ownership
frequently have very low firearm homicide rates while
areas with
relatively low gun ownership frequently have very high
firearm
homicide rates.

So, based on actual numbers, no there doesn't appear to be a
relationship between gun ownership and firearm homicide
rates.

And as I've pointed out many times, try instead to
investigate the correlation between guns designed for
killing people and homicide rates. IOW, exclude long rifles
and shotguns designed and intended for killing game. Look
instead at guns designed to fire more than about ten shots
in a minute, and look at guns designed to be easily concealed.

Sparsely populated states with long-established hunting
cultures (e.g. Montana and Vermont) have large numbers of
hunting guns, and low gun homicide rates. And I've made it
clear many times that I'm pro-hunting and not at all against
guns designed for hunting.

Nobody hunts with AR-style rifles, unless it's a gun nut
trying to show it's not completely impossible. And nobody
needs to hunt with a rapid fire handgun.


There are 15,238 actual machine guns registered in your
State, Ohio.
http://chartsbin.com/view/1922

As with the barefoot plumber this week, most guys are normal
(by definition) and no trouble at all. When's the last time
you heard a Browning M2 in your neighborhood?

Hunting is a red herring and absolutely unrelated to the 2d
Amendment, as a review of the legislative history clearly
shows. The history of unarmed populations /in extremis/ is
also clear.

None of it is clear. If the Jews had been armed, they would have been
wiped out anyway. They were a minority population. The Nazis wiped out
most of Europe, including armed Free French and millions of Russians. I
can't think of any disarmed population that would have prevailed if it
only had arms. What would have happened in Cambodia? The smart people
with glasses form a militia?

I hate to intrude into your obviously well thought out arguments but I
was reminded of a country, way back in 1775, where a bunch of guys in
Massachusetts did in fact do battle with regular soldiers, apparently
with their own weapons. And they claimed to have beaten the Regulars
too :-)


Sure. Nearly 250 years ago, in a place that was weeks away from the "home
base" of those red coated assholes. Your analogy bodes well for when Mars
attacks us.

There was a continental congress that formed an army, got buy-in from a seasoned general, funding from France and declared independence. Concord and Lexington were skirmishes. Absent an organized army, the skirmishes would have been footnotes to British history, like the Whisky rebellion. The continental army was not a bunch of basement ******s with rifles -- the Bundy clan occupying a Federal bird sanctuary in Oregon -- and daddy not wanting to pay grazing fees to the Feds. WTF? These people give the Second Amendment a bad name.

-- Jay Beattie.

The first Continental Congress met from September 5 to October 26,
1774 and apparently organized an economic boycott of Great Britain in
protest and petitioned the King for a redress of grievances.

The "Battle of Lexington" was fought on 19 April 1775.

The Second Continental Congress convened on May 10, 1775, at
Philadelphia's State House, passing the resolution for independence
the following year on July 2, 1776, and publicly asserting the
decision two days later with the Declaration of Independence.
On June 14, 1775, the Second Continental Congress decided to proceed
with the establishment of a Continental Army for purposes of common
defense

Yes, like I said, there were skirmishes and then a war. We won the war. The war was not fought by ad hoc groups of disaffected self-appointed "patriots." A group of colonial governments acting through their representatives declared independence, raised an army, fought a war and won -- and built a representative government, and here we are.

I can't look into the past and formulate alternative realities, but my assumption is that if the war had been confined to Massachusetts and there had been no continental army, the British would have re-grouped and attacked in force after the siege. I don't think the British were interested in peace at that point.

There is no parallel between the American Revolution and deadbeats with guns who think the federal government is out to get them because they have to pay grazing fees -- or because the federal government owns too much property. The parallel is Don Quixote.


-- Jay Beattie.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 11/8/2017 6:04 AM, Duane wrote:

I just saw the governor of Texas with a straight face say that the problem
in Texas was that the people in the church weren’t armed.

Of course. If he didn't claim the problem was a lack of guns, his next
election campaign would be under-financed by tens of thousands of
dollars, at least. And he'd lose the hairy knuckle vote.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 11/8/2017 11:35 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/8/2017 6:04 AM, Duane wrote:

I just saw the governor of Texas with a straight face say
that the problem
in Texas was that the people in the church weren’t armed.

Of course. If he didn't claim the problem was a lack of
guns, his next election campaign would be under-financed by
tens of thousands of dollars, at least. And he'd lose the
hairy knuckle vote.


Calling names such as hairy knuckle or deplorable (or
alternately racist, Hitler etc) doesn't make your case as
well as you might and may harden positions you might have
otherwise persuaded.

NRA was mentioned a couple of times recently here, about
which I will note that they have lost a lot of support among
regular American firearms owners in the past couple of
years. I've been a member on and off for most of my adult
life but I probably will not renew in the spring. That's
mostly to clarify that solid blocks you imagine have their
own internal fault lines.

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

On Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 9:17:27 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 7:51:19 PM UTC-8, Ralph Barone wrote:
John B. wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 11:18:00 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 8:49:31 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/7/2017 10:01 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/7/2017 2:01 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 01:18:15 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 11/6/2017 9:44 PM, John B. wrote:

In short, your thesis that guns cause crime just isn't
correct.

Where did I say that was my thesis?

The
old adage that guns don't kill people, people kill
people, apparently
is correct.

In the U.S., people murder people mostly by using guns.
In most other
advanced countries, the murder rates are far lower, and
the gun murder
rates lower yet. You can't rationally pretend that the
availability of
guns is not a significant factor.


If there is a relationship between numbers of guns and gun
deaths then
why doesn't this relationship manifest itself in the U.S.
As I have
pointed out innumerable times states with very high gun
ownership
frequently have very low firearm homicide rates while
areas with
relatively low gun ownership frequently have very high
firearm
homicide rates.

So, based on actual numbers, no there doesn't appear to be a
relationship between gun ownership and firearm homicide
rates.

And as I've pointed out many times, try instead to
investigate the correlation between guns designed for
killing people and homicide rates. IOW, exclude long rifles
and shotguns designed and intended for killing game. Look
instead at guns designed to fire more than about ten shots
in a minute, and look at guns designed to be easily concealed.

Sparsely populated states with long-established hunting
cultures (e.g. Montana and Vermont) have large numbers of
hunting guns, and low gun homicide rates. And I've made it
clear many times that I'm pro-hunting and not at all against
guns designed for hunting.

Nobody hunts with AR-style rifles, unless it's a gun nut
trying to show it's not completely impossible. And nobody
needs to hunt with a rapid fire handgun.


There are 15,238 actual machine guns registered in your
State, Ohio.
http://chartsbin.com/view/1922

As with the barefoot plumber this week, most guys are normal
(by definition) and no trouble at all. When's the last time
you heard a Browning M2 in your neighborhood?

Hunting is a red herring and absolutely unrelated to the 2d
Amendment, as a review of the legislative history clearly
shows. The history of unarmed populations /in extremis/ is
also clear.

None of it is clear. If the Jews had been armed, they would have been
wiped out anyway. They were a minority population. The Nazis wiped out
most of Europe, including armed Free French and millions of Russians.. I
can't think of any disarmed population that would have prevailed if it
only had arms. What would have happened in Cambodia? The smart people
with glasses form a militia?

I hate to intrude into your obviously well thought out arguments but I
was reminded of a country, way back in 1775, where a bunch of guys in
Massachusetts did in fact do battle with regular soldiers, apparently
with their own weapons. And they claimed to have beaten the Regulars
too :-)


Sure. Nearly 250 years ago, in a place that was weeks away from the "home
base" of those red coated assholes. Your analogy bodes well for when Mars
attacks us.

There was a continental congress that formed an army, got buy-in from a seasoned general, funding from France and declared independence. Concord and Lexington were skirmishes. Absent an organized army, the skirmishes would have been footnotes to British history, like the Whisky rebellion. The continental army was not a bunch of basement ******s with rifles -- the Bundy clan occupying a Federal bird sanctuary in Oregon -- and daddy not wanting to pay grazing fees to the Feds. WTF? These people give the Second Amendment a bad name.

Does that include this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dhrg6SH9yvE

On Wed, 08 Nov 2017 10:08:43 +0700, John B wrote:

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

That was facile bull**** when I first heard it 50 years ago. It's still
facile bull****. Stephen Paddock would not have been able to shoot and
kill 58 people and wound 546 if he had to use a slingshot and rocks.
Guns make it stupidly simple for people to kill people. But so ****ing
what?

Let's cut to the chase. The simple truth is this: your right to bear
arms trumps my right to live. That's what's enshrined in the
Constitution as it is currently interpreted. It is one of the things
that makes America the most violent nation on earth. We can dutifully
offer prayers and condolences to the survivors and families, but those
prayers and condolences mean exactly ****ing nothing. They change
nothing- hell, they are the primary strategy for changing nothing.

Human life counts for nothing in America. Guns, money and power are
what count. Faith doesn't count, people don't count, the environment
doesn't count, our children don't count, education doesn't count, peace
doesn't count, communities don't count .

Guns, power, money. That's what makes America what it is.

20 dead children in their grade school weren't enough to change
anything. 58 dead people at a concert in Las Vegas weren't enough to
change anything. 49 dead people in a nightclub weren't enough to change
anything. 6 people dead in a business 2 blocks from where I work
weren't enough. 12 people dead in a theater weren't enough to change
anything. 13 dead high school students and a teacher weren't enough to
change anything. 22 dead customers of a cafe weren't enough to change
anything. 21 dead people in a McDonald's weren't enough to change
anything. 14 dead people in a post office weren't enough to change
anything. 32 dead college students weren't enough to change anything.
26 people dead in their church weren't enough to change anything. More
than 30,000 people die every year in the US from guns, but that's not
enough to change anything. Nothing is enough to change anything.

Get used to it. There is a mass shooting in America every ****ing day.
Every ****ing day. Nobody cares except for those burying their dead.
Next week or next month when someone uses a weapon of mass destruction-
which is what a semi-automatic or automatic weapon is- we can have this
discussion all over again. And then again another week or month later.
And every week or every month until we shuffle off this mortal coil,
after which others will have this discussion every week or every month.

Why? Because guns, power and money are what matter in America.

On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 12:35:39 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 11/8/2017 6:04 AM, Duane wrote:

I just saw the governor of Texas with a straight face say that the problem
in Texas was that the people in the church weren’t armed.

Of course. If he didn't claim the problem was a lack of guns, his next
election campaign would be under-financed by tens of thousands of
dollars, at least. And he'd lose the hairy knuckle vote.

Yup. It is called democracy :-)

I.e., the majority get what they (believe) they want and the minority
are left mumbling in corners.
--
Cheers,

John B.

stats


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/w...ef=todayspaper

On 11/8/2017 3:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/8/2017 11:35 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/8/2017 6:04 AM, Duane wrote:

I just saw the governor of Texas with a straight face say
that the problem
in Texas was that the people in the church weren’t armed.

Of course. If he didn't claim the problem was a lack of
guns, his next election campaign would be under-financed by
tens of thousands of dollars, at least. And he'd lose the
hairy knuckle vote.


Calling names such as hairy knuckle or deplorable (or alternately
racist, Hitler etc) doesn't make your case as well as you might and may
harden positions you might have otherwise persuaded.

You're right, of course.

NRA was mentioned a couple of times recently here, about which I will
note that they have lost a lot of support among regular American
firearms owners in the past couple of years. I've been a member on and
off for most of my adult life but I probably will not renew in the
spring. That's mostly to clarify that solid blocks you imagine have
their own internal fault lines.

And it is easy to think of an "other" group as a monolithic group.

It should be clear by now that I'm not against all guns, and I strongly
approve of hunting. In fact, one of my very best friends proudly showed
me, just this week, the two antique handguns he had recently purchased.
He's also the last guy (well, with other friends) with whom I went shooting.

However, he thinks most of the current pro-gun arguments currently
thrown around are nuts.

--
- Frank Krygowski