Re: Todays rant

On 12/15/2024 5:14 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Sun, 15 Dec 2024 16:02:12 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
 

On 12/15/2024 2:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 12/15/2024 1:23 PM, zen cycle wrote:

On 12/15/2024 2:02 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 12/15/2024 10:43 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Sun, 15 Dec 2024 11:06:55 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 12/15/2024 10:11 AM, John B. wrote:

On 15 Dec 2024 14:17:03 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
>

Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

On 14 Dec 2024 16:52:01 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
>

AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

On 12/14/2024 8:23 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:

Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 20:59:41 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>

On 12/13/2024 8:41 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 12/13/2024 4:06 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 12/13/2024 1:15 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:

>
     The vast majority of the mass shootings that target
random victims in schools, malls, and theaters aren't
committed by people with a violent past, so the argument
that 'they never committed violence before' is pretty
much irrelevant to the context of this conversation.
>
Yes, I realize there have been a number of instances  at
clubs, bars, and parties where it seems to be related to
gang activity. Those aren't' the types of incidents we're
discussing.
>

>
Yes I agree.  The bulk of 'mass shooting' events are
tangential to ongoing criminal activity; at a party, in a
bar, drive-by in front of a crowd, etc. Utterly different
problem (with different possible resolutions) than a
deranged but determined homicidal maniac.
>
I can't think of a deterrent/preventive strategy except
for maybe public execution and I hesitate to assume even
that would dissuade Son of Sam, Nikolas Cruz, Richard
Ramirez, Stephen Paddock, Jeffrey Dahmer, or their ilk.

>
One suggestion might be to look at the social conditions in
nations similar to the U.S. but with far fewer killings,
especially gun killings, per capita. Emulate what they do.
>
"?No Way To Prevent This,? Says Only Nation Where This
Regularly Happens"
>
https://theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this- says-only-
nation-where-this-r-1848971668/
>
>

>
I do not have a snappy solution.
>
some context:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1386759/ mass-
shootings- us-other-developed-world/
>
https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/ murder-victims-
in- the-us-by-weapon-used/
>
https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass- shootings-
in- the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

>
Even if all the "assault weapons" were rounded up and
destroyed, it
wouldn't stop the mass murders nor any other murders. There
are too
many other ways to do it.
>
Where there's a will, there's a way. The problem is there
are people
with the will.

>
It?s much much harder without a gun and particularly a gun
that can be
rapidly fired.
>
Mass murders by other means are not impossible but that much
harder and can
be stopped by brave unarmed people as with the children
killed in the uk
this summer, which was used by various right wing groups to
inspire riots
by well lying!
>
But the suspect was slowed by one of the nursery workers I
think she died
from her injuries but she was able to slow/prevent and a
colleague got help
from the Gym? Anyway a large chap who subdued the attacker.
>
Don?t get me wrong I suspect that it would require more than
just removing
easy access to guns etc, but even that almost certainly would
have dramatic
effects.

>
-- C'est bon
Soloman
>

>
Roger Merriman

>
Well, yes to some extent.
>
In the instant example from NYC, Mr Mangione, an engineer,
originally planned to make a bomb but decided the risk of
injury/death to people other than his target was too high so
he made his own firearm and suppressor with a 3D printer.
Good luck 'regulating' a capable determined psychopath.
>
Anyone with basic machining skills can make a Sten. The
simple open bolt action design is at the top end of firing
rates for automatics:
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/guns- and-parts-
seized-man-arrested-in-weapons-raids/ news-story/
e7addecb691695b3aebdb5b613181132

>
I?m sure they could but that?s not the path of least resistance
ie to use
the gun they own.

>
Although the path of least resistance has changed to 3D print:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/14/australia/ australia-3d-
printed- firearm-intl-hnk/index.html

>
I believe that?s more criminals trying to avoid detection, than
being
actively used at least in the mass killings.

>
Criminals shooting each other and the innocents nearby are a
real problem. That problem, within bounds of rationality,
likely has solutions for mitigation. A madman determined to
kill will not be deterred by licensing/prohibition.

>
Places that have removed guns or from general circulation
suggest otherwise
plus police actions.
>
Ie in the uk use of gun means as criminals you?ve instantly
made yourself
UK most wanted, let alone your chance of survival if the armed
police
encounter you.

>
A short walk through the history of anarchist and insurgent
bombings shows huge losses.

>
Occasionally yes, but it?s much harder work and much less
numbers certainly
per year.

>
p.s. regarding 'rapid'
Modern semi rifles and pistols fire all within the same rate
range, which is lower than revolvers BTW and much slower
than even primitive home built automatics
>

Indeed any gun control would almost certainly target those. As
happens in
various countries.
>
Roger Merriman
>

>
Your reference to using a gun in the UK being a serious crime is
really what makes it less common. If we made carrying a gun while
committing a crime a serious offense with mandatory prison it
would be
a serious detereant. Instead we just turn them loose.
>

Gun use is a rarity in the UK hence uk can respond so fully, I
doubt USA
could do that nor would mandatory prison time make much difference.
>
It’s the career professionals who are most put off, ie a gun
means they are
instantly top of the list and will have significant resources made
available to catch them.
>
And if it’s deemed remotely that your a risk to the public the
armed police
who are very highly trained and your life will be viewed and a
secondary
concern.
>
This is why organised crime keeps away from guns as serving time
in the
prison is part of the job. But being targeted both by the police
and by the
armed response isn’t ie the consequences outweigh the benefits.
>

-- C'est bon
Soloman
>

Roger Merriman
>

>
The difference is that after gaining freedom from the U.K., or was it
England?, in the late 1700's,  the U.S. made the he right of a
citizen
to hold and bear arms a fundamental part of the new country's laws.

>
True, to have "well regulated militias."

>
..which was not a requirement for individuals' right to keep and bear
arms
>

They also made it legal to own slaves. And let slaves count as 3/5
of a
person for certain government calculations.
>
Mistakes were made. Other countries learned, and avoided them.

>
Counting slaves as 3/5th was done to reduce the voting power of the
slave states. It was not only not detrimental to slaves, who couldn't
vote anyway, it was beneficial to the abolitionists. Fools have been
getting that fact wrong for many years
>
-- C'est bon
Soloman

>
+1
>

   horseshit.

>
Review the legislative history and conclude as you will.

>
"It was ... not detrimental to slaves" is a pretty astonishing view. It
allowed people with zero legal rights to be counted to boost the power
of the slave states, making abolition a much more difficult project.
IOW, it contributed directly to keeping those people enslaved.

 Nonsense. Without the 3/5 Compromise the South would have gone their
own way, the Constitional Convention would have broken up, and we'd
likely have had two unions. The 3/5th Compromise kept the proposed
"union" together which kept the northern abolitionists politically
involved with slavery in the South, which eventually led to the Civil
War and abolition.

wow...more revisionist history from the dumbasses right-wing echo chamber.
The northern states balked for exactly the reason frank stated. Slaves weren't considered humans, let alone citizens, by the southern states, they were considered chattel. Yet they wanted them to be included for the purposes of representation. As frank states, it would have been similar to a chicken farmer trying to include his chickens for the population count.

 

The south viewed slaves as "property." To be logically consistent, they
should have not been counted for representation any more than horses
were counted for representation.
>
But blatant perversions of "logic" are common among people whose agendas
put their own personal benefit so far above the benefits of others, or
of society.

 Logic is not Krygowski's strong suit.
--
C'est bon
Soloman