Discussion:
8 & 9 year old girls riding bicycles
Add Reply
AMuzi
2024-12-24 01:02:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raped and murdered by one of Uncle Joe's pals:

https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
John B.
2024-12-24 02:46:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and
crying about how cruel the death sentence is.

Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in
crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or
let him go.
--
Cheers,

John B.
Jeff Liebermann
2024-12-24 03:20:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and
crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in
crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or
let him go.
Yes, but life imprisonment saves money:
<https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life
without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
--
Jeff Liebermann ***@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
John B.
2024-12-24 04:47:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and
crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in
crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or
let him go.
<https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life
without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
Firstly, why should there be many of these extra costs - longer to
impanel the jury, etc

Secondly cost of incarcerations isn't just how much to keep one guy. I
read that the U.S. prisons are full. full, full. In fact (I believe)
Mr. Muzi posted a reference to a criminal who wasn't imprisoned
because "there was no place for him to sleep", so higher legal costs
must be offset by cost of building new prisons.

As a good friend, who was in the cost studies business, once
commented, "tell me what you want to prove and I'll design a survey to
prove it". In other words the way you ask your questions and how the
questions are worded determine the answer that you get.

By the same token I doubt very much that when a News Reporter asks
someone's wife, "do you believe that your husband's murder should be
executed that you get truly honest answer.
--
Cheers,

John B.
cyclintom
2024-12-25 17:48:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John B.
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and
crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in
crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or
let him go.
<https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life
without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
Firstly, why should there be many of these extra costs - longer to
impanel the jury, etc
Secondly cost of incarcerations isn't just how much to keep one guy. I
read that the U.S. prisons are full. full, full. In fact (I believe)
Mr. Muzi posted a reference to a criminal who wasn't imprisoned
because "there was no place for him to sleep", so higher legal costs
must be offset by cost of building new prisons.
As a good friend, who was in the cost studies business, once
commented, "tell me what you want to prove and I'll design a survey to
prove it". In other words the way you ask your questions and how the
questions are worded determine the answer that you get.
By the same token I doubt very much that when a News Reporter asks
someone's wife, "do you believe that your husband's murder should be
executed that you get truly honest answer.
--
Cheers,
John B.
John you just pointed out how far asses like Liebermann will go to remain woke.
Frank Krygowski
2024-12-24 05:15:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and
crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in
crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or
let him go.
<https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life
without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
In addition to the expense (in Tax Dollars!!!)...

Biden is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is officially against the
death penalty.

AFAIK there's no evidence it acts as a real deterrent.

Immoral (according to at least many experts in morality), expensive,
ineffective ...

What were the arguments in favor of it?
--
- Frank Krygowski
Catrike Ryder
2024-12-24 09:10:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 00:15:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and
crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in
crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or
let him go.
<https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life
without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
In addition to the expense (in Tax Dollars!!!)...
Biden is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is officially against the
death penalty.
AFAIK there's no evidence it acts as a real deterrent.
Immoral (according to at least many experts in morality), expensive,
ineffective ...
<eyeroll> Seriously? "experts in morality?" Who might that be?

Morality is, of course, a subject evaluation.
Post by Frank Krygowski
What were the arguments in favor of it?
Polling indicated that the majority is in favor of it... and yes,
that is an argument in favor of it.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1606/Death-Penalty.aspx

--
C'est bon
Soloman
John B.
2024-12-24 09:47:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:10:43 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 00:15:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and
crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in
crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or
let him go.
<https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life
without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
In addition to the expense (in Tax Dollars!!!)...
Biden is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is officially against the
death penalty.
AFAIK there's no evidence it acts as a real deterrent.
Immoral (according to at least many experts in morality), expensive,
ineffective ...
<eyeroll> Seriously? "experts in morality?" Who might that be?
Morality is, of course, a subject evaluation.
Post by Frank Krygowski
What were the arguments in favor of it?
There is probably no justification for discussions (in the U.S.) in
favor of Morality.
After all, from 1783 to the present the U.S.has been at war for nearly
all of its history.

"Since The United States of America was founded in 1776, this country
has been in war for 222 years. That is, the 93% of its time since it
exists. Only 21 years were peaceful."
--
Cheers,

John B.
Catrike Ryder
2024-12-24 09:53:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John B.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:10:43 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 00:15:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and
crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in
crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or
let him go.
<https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life
without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
In addition to the expense (in Tax Dollars!!!)...
Biden is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is officially against the
death penalty.
AFAIK there's no evidence it acts as a real deterrent.
Immoral (according to at least many experts in morality), expensive,
ineffective ...
<eyeroll> Seriously? "experts in morality?" Who might that be?
Morality is, of course, a subject evaluation.
Post by Frank Krygowski
What were the arguments in favor of it?
There is probably no justification for discussions (in the U.S.) in
favor of Morality.
After all, from 1783 to the present the U.S.has been at war for nearly
all of its history.
"Since The United States of America was founded in 1776, this country
has been in war for 222 years. That is, the 93% of its time since it
exists. Only 21 years were peaceful."
Are you suggesting that war is unconditionally immoral?

--
C'est bon
Soloman
John B.
2024-12-24 11:04:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:53:16 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:10:43 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 00:15:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and
crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in
crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or
let him go.
<https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life
without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
In addition to the expense (in Tax Dollars!!!)...
Biden is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is officially against the
death penalty.
AFAIK there's no evidence it acts as a real deterrent.
Immoral (according to at least many experts in morality), expensive,
ineffective ...
<eyeroll> Seriously? "experts in morality?" Who might that be?
Morality is, of course, a subject evaluation.
Post by Frank Krygowski
What were the arguments in favor of it?
There is probably no justification for discussions (in the U.S.) in
favor of Morality.
After all, from 1783 to the present the U.S.has been at war for nearly
all of its history.
"Since The United States of America was founded in 1776, this country
has been in war for 222 years. That is, the 93% of its time since it
exists. Only 21 years were peaceful."
Are you suggesting that war is unconditionally immoral?
Not unconditionally,but a great many of the U.S. wars are very
difficult to justify and if you take into consideration how the war
was conducted at best it was a disaster.
--
Cheers,

John B.
Catrike Ryder
2024-12-24 12:17:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John B.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:53:16 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:10:43 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 00:15:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and
crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in
crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or
let him go.
<https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life
without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
In addition to the expense (in Tax Dollars!!!)...
Biden is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is officially against the
death penalty.
AFAIK there's no evidence it acts as a real deterrent.
Immoral (according to at least many experts in morality), expensive,
ineffective ...
<eyeroll> Seriously? "experts in morality?" Who might that be?
Morality is, of course, a subject evaluation.
Post by Frank Krygowski
What were the arguments in favor of it?
There is probably no justification for discussions (in the U.S.) in
favor of Morality.
After all, from 1783 to the present the U.S.has been at war for nearly
all of its history.
"Since The United States of America was founded in 1776, this country
has been in war for 222 years. That is, the 93% of its time since it
exists. Only 21 years were peaceful."
Are you suggesting that war is unconditionally immoral?
Not unconditionally,but a great many of the U.S. wars are very
difficult to justify and if you take into consideration how the war
was conducted at best it was a disaster.
The USA has indeed gotten itself into some unjustifiable (in my
opinion) wars which didn't work out well, but a few were righteous.
(again, in my opinion)

--
C'est bon
Soloman
John B.
2024-12-24 13:14:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 07:17:00 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:53:16 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:10:43 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 00:15:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and
crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in
crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or
let him go.
<https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life
without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
In addition to the expense (in Tax Dollars!!!)...
Biden is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is officially against the
death penalty.
AFAIK there's no evidence it acts as a real deterrent.
Immoral (according to at least many experts in morality), expensive,
ineffective ...
<eyeroll> Seriously? "experts in morality?" Who might that be?
Morality is, of course, a subject evaluation.
Post by Frank Krygowski
What were the arguments in favor of it?
There is probably no justification for discussions (in the U.S.) in
favor of Morality.
After all, from 1783 to the present the U.S.has been at war for nearly
all of its history.
"Since The United States of America was founded in 1776, this country
has been in war for 222 years. That is, the 93% of its time since it
exists. Only 21 years were peaceful."
Are you suggesting that war is unconditionally immoral?
Not unconditionally,but a great many of the U.S. wars are very
difficult to justify and if you take into consideration how the war
was conducted at best it was a disaster.
The USA has indeed gotten itself into some unjustifiable (in my
opinion) wars which didn't work out well, but a few were righteous.
(again, in my opinion)
Post WW II?
--
Cheers,

John B.
Catrike Ryder
2024-12-24 13:28:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John B.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 07:17:00 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:53:16 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:10:43 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 00:15:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and
crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in
crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or
let him go.
<https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life
without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
In addition to the expense (in Tax Dollars!!!)...
Biden is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is officially against the
death penalty.
AFAIK there's no evidence it acts as a real deterrent.
Immoral (according to at least many experts in morality), expensive,
ineffective ...
<eyeroll> Seriously? "experts in morality?" Who might that be?
Morality is, of course, a subject evaluation.
Post by Frank Krygowski
What were the arguments in favor of it?
There is probably no justification for discussions (in the U.S.) in
favor of Morality.
After all, from 1783 to the present the U.S.has been at war for nearly
all of its history.
"Since The United States of America was founded in 1776, this country
has been in war for 222 years. That is, the 93% of its time since it
exists. Only 21 years were peaceful."
Are you suggesting that war is unconditionally immoral?
Not unconditionally,but a great many of the U.S. wars are very
difficult to justify and if you take into consideration how the war
was conducted at best it was a disaster.
The USA has indeed gotten itself into some unjustifiable (in my
opinion) wars which didn't work out well, but a few were righteous.
(again, in my opinion)
Post WW II?
I believe at least the first half of the Korean War was righteous,
after that it got fuzzy.

--
C'est bon
Soloman
John B.
2024-12-24 14:30:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 08:28:16 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 07:17:00 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:53:16 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:10:43 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 00:15:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and
crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in
crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or
let him go.
<https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life
without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
In addition to the expense (in Tax Dollars!!!)...
Biden is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is officially against the
death penalty.
AFAIK there's no evidence it acts as a real deterrent.
Immoral (according to at least many experts in morality), expensive,
ineffective ...
<eyeroll> Seriously? "experts in morality?" Who might that be?
Morality is, of course, a subject evaluation.
Post by Frank Krygowski
What were the arguments in favor of it?
There is probably no justification for discussions (in the U.S.) in
favor of Morality.
After all, from 1783 to the present the U.S.has been at war for nearly
all of its history.
"Since The United States of America was founded in 1776, this country
has been in war for 222 years. That is, the 93% of its time since it
exists. Only 21 years were peaceful."
Are you suggesting that war is unconditionally immoral?
Not unconditionally,but a great many of the U.S. wars are very
difficult to justify and if you take into consideration how the war
was conducted at best it was a disaster.
The USA has indeed gotten itself into some unjustifiable (in my
opinion) wars which didn't work out well, but a few were righteous.
(again, in my opinion)
Post WW II?
I believe at least the first half of the Korean War was righteous,
after that it got fuzzy.
It is said that General MacArthur thought that with China next door,
so to speak, that atomic weapons would work well but the President put
the kibosh on that ides so away they went, Up the country and back
down again and ended up in the same place with 140,000 dead bodies.
--
Cheers,

John B.
cyclintom
2024-12-25 18:34:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John B.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 08:28:16 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 07:17:00 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:53:16 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:10:43 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 00:15:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and
crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in
crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or
let him go.
<https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life
without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
In addition to the expense (in Tax Dollars!!!)...
Biden is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is officially against the
death penalty.
AFAIK there's no evidence it acts as a real deterrent.
Immoral (according to at least many experts in morality), expensive,
ineffective ...
<eyeroll> Seriously? "experts in morality?" Who might that be?
Morality is, of course, a subject evaluation.
Post by Frank Krygowski
What were the arguments in favor of it?
There is probably no justification for discussions (in the U.S.) in
favor of Morality.
After all, from 1783 to the present the U.S.has been at war for nearly
all of its history.
"Since The United States of America was founded in 1776, this country
has been in war for 222 years. That is, the 93% of its time since it
exists. Only 21 years were peaceful."
Are you suggesting that war is unconditionally immoral?
Not unconditionally,but a great many of the U.S. wars are very
difficult to justify and if you take into consideration how the war
was conducted at best it was a disaster.
The USA has indeed gotten itself into some unjustifiable (in my
opinion) wars which didn't work out well, but a few were righteous.
(again, in my opinion)
Post WW II?
I believe at least the first half of the Korean War was righteous,
after that it got fuzzy.
It is said that General MacArthur thought that with China next door,
so to speak, that atomic weapons would work well but the President put
the kibosh on that ides so away they went, Up the country and back
down again and ended up in the same place with 140,000 dead bodies.
And acheived nothing that would not have been achieved by simoply arming the South Korean Government. The USA getting involved automatically brought Russia and China in on the other side.
cyclintom
2024-12-25 18:31:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:53:16 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:10:43 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 00:15:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and
crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in
crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or
let him go.
<https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life
without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
In addition to the expense (in Tax Dollars!!!)...
Biden is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is officially against the
death penalty.
AFAIK there's no evidence it acts as a real deterrent.
Immoral (according to at least many experts in morality), expensive,
ineffective ...
<eyeroll> Seriously? "experts in morality?" Who might that be?
Morality is, of course, a subject evaluation.
Post by Frank Krygowski
What were the arguments in favor of it?
There is probably no justification for discussions (in the U.S.) in
favor of Morality.
After all, from 1783 to the present the U.S.has been at war for nearly
all of its history.
"Since The United States of America was founded in 1776, this country
has been in war for 222 years. That is, the 93% of its time since it
exists. Only 21 years were peaceful."
Are you suggesting that war is unconditionally immoral?
Not unconditionally,but a great many of the U.S. wars are very
difficult to justify and if you take into consideration how the war
was conducted at best it was a disaster.
The USA has indeed gotten itself into some unjustifiable (in my
opinion) wars which didn't work out well, but a few were righteous.
(again, in my opinion)
Korea was questionable but we had a TREATY that required us to react. But no wars are richeous because they ALL kill people.
AMuzi
2024-12-24 13:35:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:10:43 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 00:15:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and
crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in
crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or
let him go.
<https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life
without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
In addition to the expense (in Tax Dollars!!!)...
Biden is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is officially against the
death penalty.
AFAIK there's no evidence it acts as a real deterrent.
Immoral (according to at least many experts in morality), expensive,
ineffective ...
<eyeroll> Seriously? "experts in morality?" Who might that be?
Morality is, of course, a subject evaluation.
Post by Frank Krygowski
What were the arguments in favor of it?
There is probably no justification for discussions (in the U.S.) in
favor of Morality.
After all, from 1783 to the present the U.S.has been at war for nearly
all of its history.
"Since The United States of America was founded in 1776, this country
has been in war for 222 years. That is, the 93% of its time since it
exists. Only 21 years were peaceful."
Are you suggesting that war is unconditionally immoral?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
That defies a categorical conclusion.

Take Mr Bush the Elder's recuse of Kuwait. A right and
proper excursion, well planned, quickly executed. Hard to
argue against it.
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Catrike Ryder
2024-12-24 15:14:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:10:43 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 00:15:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and
crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in
crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or
let him go.
<https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life
without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
In addition to the expense (in Tax Dollars!!!)...
Biden is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is officially against the
death penalty.
AFAIK there's no evidence it acts as a real deterrent.
Immoral (according to at least many experts in morality), expensive,
ineffective ...
<eyeroll> Seriously? "experts in morality?" Who might that be?
Morality is, of course, a subject evaluation.
Post by Frank Krygowski
What were the arguments in favor of it?
There is probably no justification for discussions (in the U.S.) in
favor of Morality.
After all, from 1783 to the present the U.S.has been at war for nearly
all of its history.
"Since The United States of America was founded in 1776, this country
has been in war for 222 years. That is, the 93% of its time since it
exists. Only 21 years were peaceful."
Are you suggesting that war is unconditionally immoral?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
That defies a categorical conclusion.
Take Mr Bush the Elder's recuse of Kuwait. A right and
proper excursion, well planned, quickly executed. Hard to
argue against it.
Yes.. well done and righteous.

--
C'est bon
Soloman
cyclintom
2024-12-25 18:29:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:10:43 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 00:15:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and
crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in
crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or
let him go.
<https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life
without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
In addition to the expense (in Tax Dollars!!!)...
Biden is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is officially against the
death penalty.
AFAIK there's no evidence it acts as a real deterrent.
Immoral (according to at least many experts in morality), expensive,
ineffective ...
<eyeroll> Seriously? "experts in morality?" Who might that be?
Morality is, of course, a subject evaluation.
Post by Frank Krygowski
What were the arguments in favor of it?
There is probably no justification for discussions (in the U.S.) in
favor of Morality.
After all, from 1783 to the present the U.S.has been at war for nearly
all of its history.
"Since The United States of America was founded in 1776, this country
has been in war for 222 years. That is, the 93% of its time since it
exists. Only 21 years were peaceful."
Are you suggesting that war is unconditionally immoral?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
That defies a categorical conclusion.
Take Mr Bush the Elder's recuse of Kuwait. A right and
proper excursion, well planned, quickly executed. Hard to
argue against it.
But you can't call that a war. More of a retributative strike.
AMuzi
2024-12-25 19:15:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by cyclintom
Post by AMuzi
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:10:43 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 00:15:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and
crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in
crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or
let him go.
<https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life
without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
In addition to the expense (in Tax Dollars!!!)...
Biden is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is officially against the
death penalty.
AFAIK there's no evidence it acts as a real deterrent.
Immoral (according to at least many experts in morality), expensive,
ineffective ...
<eyeroll> Seriously? "experts in morality?" Who might that be?
Morality is, of course, a subject evaluation.
Post by Frank Krygowski
What were the arguments in favor of it?
There is probably no justification for discussions (in the U.S.) in
favor of Morality.
After all, from 1783 to the present the U.S.has been at war for nearly
all of its history.
"Since The United States of America was founded in 1776, this country
has been in war for 222 years. That is, the 93% of its time since it
exists. Only 21 years were peaceful."
Are you suggesting that war is unconditionally immoral?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
That defies a categorical conclusion.
Take Mr Bush the Elder's recuse of Kuwait. A right and
proper excursion, well planned, quickly executed. Hard to
argue against it.
But you can't call that a war. More of a retributative strike.
Two million servicemen (including transport, logistics &
support) in a perfectly planned and executed expedition,
with a clear definition of victory and resolved posthaste.

If you can't see that as the exemplar of how to conduct a
war, you need to read some history for a better perspective.
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
cyclintom
2024-12-26 00:26:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
Post by cyclintom
Post by AMuzi
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:10:43 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 00:15:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and
crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in
crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or
let him go.
<https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life
without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
In addition to the expense (in Tax Dollars!!!)...
Biden is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is officially against the
death penalty.
AFAIK there's no evidence it acts as a real deterrent.
Immoral (according to at least many experts in morality), expensive,
ineffective ...
<eyeroll> Seriously? "experts in morality?" Who might that be?
Morality is, of course, a subject evaluation.
Post by Frank Krygowski
What were the arguments in favor of it?
There is probably no justification for discussions (in the U.S.) in
favor of Morality.
After all, from 1783 to the present the U.S.has been at war for nearly
all of its history.
"Since The United States of America was founded in 1776, this country
has been in war for 222 years. That is, the 93% of its time since it
exists. Only 21 years were peaceful."
Are you suggesting that war is unconditionally immoral?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
That defies a categorical conclusion.
Take Mr Bush the Elder's recuse of Kuwait. A right and
proper excursion, well planned, quickly executed. Hard to
argue against it.
But you can't call that a war. More of a retributative strike.
Two million servicemen (including transport, logistics &
support) in a perfectly planned and executed expedition,
with a clear definition of victory and resolved posthaste.
If you can't see that as the exemplar of how to conduct a
war, you need to read some history for a better perspective.
What was its cause and what did it achieve?
AMuzi
2024-12-26 01:23:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by cyclintom
Post by AMuzi
Post by cyclintom
Post by AMuzi
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:10:43 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 00:15:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and
crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in
crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or
let him go.
<https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life
without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
In addition to the expense (in Tax Dollars!!!)...
Biden is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is officially against the
death penalty.
AFAIK there's no evidence it acts as a real deterrent.
Immoral (according to at least many experts in morality), expensive,
ineffective ...
<eyeroll> Seriously? "experts in morality?" Who might that be?
Morality is, of course, a subject evaluation.
Post by Frank Krygowski
What were the arguments in favor of it?
There is probably no justification for discussions (in the U.S.) in
favor of Morality.
After all, from 1783 to the present the U.S.has been at war for nearly
all of its history.
"Since The United States of America was founded in 1776, this country
has been in war for 222 years. That is, the 93% of its time since it
exists. Only 21 years were peaceful."
Are you suggesting that war is unconditionally immoral?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
That defies a categorical conclusion.
Take Mr Bush the Elder's recuse of Kuwait. A right and
proper excursion, well planned, quickly executed. Hard to
argue against it.
But you can't call that a war. More of a retributative strike.
Two million servicemen (including transport, logistics &
support) in a perfectly planned and executed expedition,
with a clear definition of victory and resolved posthaste.
If you can't see that as the exemplar of how to conduct a
war, you need to read some history for a better perspective.
What was its cause and what did it achieve?
Iraq invaded, pillaged, raped and enslaved the Kuwaitis.

Rather than holding a press conference and warning about
some mythical 'red line' while dithering (that really
happened, 2012) or holding a press conference and warning
the invader , "Don't" (same team, different spokesman, ten
years later), Mr Bush defined victory as 'liberation of
Kuwait', drew sensible plans, marshaled the resources to
pursue them, authorized competent military commanders,
notably Gen Norman Schwartzkopf, and routed teh Iraqui army
out of Kuwait in four days.

Not twenty years. Four days.

That does not fit the common criticism 'endless war'.

Better still, once the defined goal was reached, we declare
victory and stopped. No nation building, no social
experiments, no CIA manipulation of local elections, etc.
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
John B.
2024-12-26 03:31:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
Post by cyclintom
Post by AMuzi
Post by cyclintom
Post by AMuzi
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:10:43 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 00:15:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and
crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in
crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or
let him go.
<https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life
without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
In addition to the expense (in Tax Dollars!!!)...
Biden is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is officially against the
death penalty.
AFAIK there's no evidence it acts as a real deterrent.
Immoral (according to at least many experts in morality), expensive,
ineffective ...
<eyeroll> Seriously? "experts in morality?" Who might that be?
Morality is, of course, a subject evaluation.
Post by Frank Krygowski
What were the arguments in favor of it?
There is probably no justification for discussions (in the U.S.) in
favor of Morality.
After all, from 1783 to the present the U.S.has been at war for nearly
all of its history.
"Since The United States of America was founded in 1776, this country
has been in war for 222 years. That is, the 93% of its time since it
exists. Only 21 years were peaceful."
Are you suggesting that war is unconditionally immoral?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
That defies a categorical conclusion.
Take Mr Bush the Elder's recuse of Kuwait. A right and
proper excursion, well planned, quickly executed. Hard to
argue against it.
But you can't call that a war. More of a retributative strike.
Two million servicemen (including transport, logistics &
support) in a perfectly planned and executed expedition,
with a clear definition of victory and resolved posthaste.
If you can't see that as the exemplar of how to conduct a
war, you need to read some history for a better perspective.
What was its cause and what did it achieve?
Iraq invaded, pillaged, raped and enslaved the Kuwaitis.
Rather than holding a press conference and warning about
some mythical 'red line' while dithering (that really
happened, 2012) or holding a press conference and warning
the invader , "Don't" (same team, different spokesman, ten
years later), Mr Bush defined victory as 'liberation of
Kuwait', drew sensible plans, marshaled the resources to
pursue them, authorized competent military commanders,
notably Gen Norman Schwartzkopf, and routed teh Iraqui army
out of Kuwait in four days.
Not twenty years. Four days.
That does not fit the common criticism 'endless war'.
Better still, once the defined goal was reached, we declare
victory and stopped. No nation building, no social
experiments, no CIA manipulation of local elections, etc.
Well. Sort of.

The George W. Bush administration began actively pressing for military
intervention in Iraq in late 2001. And then there was the "weapons of
mass destruction" that Iraq had developed and, of course ,Colin
Powell's speech to the U.N. Security Council Wednesday, January 5,
2003.

Hardly a single, isolated, affair, nor an honest explanation of why.
--
Cheers,

John B.
Shadow
2024-12-26 12:26:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
Post by John B.
"Since The United States of America was founded in 1776, this country
has been in war for 222 years. That is, the 93% of its time since it
exists. Only 21 years were peaceful."
<snip>
Post by AMuzi
Not twenty years. Four days.
So hardly an excuse for why the US has been at war for 222
years. I'd call that a tiny intervention in foreign affairs, not a
war.
Post by AMuzi
That does not fit the common criticism 'endless war'.
Better still, once the defined goal was reached, we declare
victory and stopped. No nation building, no social
experiments, no CIA manipulation of local elections, etc.
The CIA did try to impose a massively oppressive dictatorship
in Kuwait, but it was already there. And still is. So they had to
stand down.
And yet no sanctions by the US.
Weird. Let's hope Trump is enough of a statesman to correct
the incredible discrepancies in the US's foreign policies.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
Google Fuchsia - 2021
AMuzi
2024-12-26 14:18:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Shadow
Post by AMuzi
Post by John B.
"Since The United States of America was founded in 1776, this country
has been in war for 222 years. That is, the 93% of its time since it
exists. Only 21 years were peaceful."
<snip>
Post by AMuzi
Not twenty years. Four days.
So hardly an excuse for why the US has been at war for 222
years. I'd call that a tiny intervention in foreign affairs, not a
war.
Post by AMuzi
That does not fit the common criticism 'endless war'.
Better still, once the defined goal was reached, we declare
victory and stopped. No nation building, no social
experiments, no CIA manipulation of local elections, etc.
The CIA did try to impose a massively oppressive dictatorship
in Kuwait, but it was already there. And still is. So they had to
stand down.
And yet no sanctions by the US.
Weird. Let's hope Trump is enough of a statesman to correct
the incredible discrepancies in the US's foreign policies.
[]'s
Kuwait is an emirate (sorta 'kingdom' but on the cheap) with
a typical mideast history of poor leadership and political
division:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/history-of-Kuwait

Kuwait has doubled its population in just a few years, but
remains smaller than Rio de Janiero.

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/kuwait-population/

Except for significant oil/gas production and reserves no
one would much care either way.

I don't know about CIA in Kuwait, but you may well be right
in that CIA does that sort of thing habitually, that is,
without a strategic view, and makes more trouble than they
cure generally.
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
John B.
2024-12-26 00:43:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
Post by cyclintom
Post by AMuzi
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:10:43 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 00:15:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and
crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in
crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or
let him go.
<https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life
without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
In addition to the expense (in Tax Dollars!!!)...
Biden is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is officially against the
death penalty.
AFAIK there's no evidence it acts as a real deterrent.
Immoral (according to at least many experts in morality), expensive,
ineffective ...
<eyeroll> Seriously? "experts in morality?" Who might that be?
Morality is, of course, a subject evaluation.
Post by Frank Krygowski
What were the arguments in favor of it?
There is probably no justification for discussions (in the U.S.) in
favor of Morality.
After all, from 1783 to the present the U.S.has been at war for nearly
all of its history.
"Since The United States of America was founded in 1776, this country
has been in war for 222 years. That is, the 93% of its time since it
exists. Only 21 years were peaceful."
Are you suggesting that war is unconditionally immoral?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
That defies a categorical conclusion.
Take Mr Bush the Elder's recuse of Kuwait. A right and
proper excursion, well planned, quickly executed. Hard to
argue against it.
But you can't call that a war. More of a retributative strike.
Two million servicemen (including transport, logistics &
support) in a perfectly planned and executed expedition,
with a clear definition of victory and resolved posthaste.
If you can't see that as the exemplar of how to conduct a
war, you need to read some history for a better perspective.
A war on the other side of the world fought between two parties
foreign to the U.S.
--
Cheers,

John B.
AMuzi
2024-12-26 01:32:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
Post by cyclintom
Post by AMuzi
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:10:43 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 00:15:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and
crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in
crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or
let him go.
<https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life
without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
In addition to the expense (in Tax Dollars!!!)...
Biden is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is officially against the
death penalty.
AFAIK there's no evidence it acts as a real deterrent.
Immoral (according to at least many experts in morality), expensive,
ineffective ...
<eyeroll> Seriously? "experts in morality?" Who might that be?
Morality is, of course, a subject evaluation.
Post by Frank Krygowski
What were the arguments in favor of it?
There is probably no justification for discussions (in the U.S.) in
favor of Morality.
After all, from 1783 to the present the U.S.has been at war for nearly
all of its history.
"Since The United States of America was founded in 1776, this country
has been in war for 222 years. That is, the 93% of its time since it
exists. Only 21 years were peaceful."
Are you suggesting that war is unconditionally immoral?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
That defies a categorical conclusion.
Take Mr Bush the Elder's recuse of Kuwait. A right and
proper excursion, well planned, quickly executed. Hard to
argue against it.
But you can't call that a war. More of a retributative strike.
Two million servicemen (including transport, logistics &
support) in a perfectly planned and executed expedition,
with a clear definition of victory and resolved posthaste.
If you can't see that as the exemplar of how to conduct a
war, you need to read some history for a better perspective.
A war on the other side of the world fought between two parties
foreign to the U.S.
Kuwait? Fight? Surely you jest!

https://militaryhallofhonor.com/honoree-record.php?id=323
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Shadow
2024-12-24 15:08:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:53:16 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
There is probably no justification for discussions (in the U.S.) in
favor of Morality.
After all, from 1783 to the present the U.S.has been at war for nearly
all of its history.
"Since The United States of America was founded in 1776, this country
has been in war for 222 years. That is, the 93% of its time since it
exists. Only 21 years were peaceful."
Are you suggesting that war is unconditionally immoral?
Depends who you ask. An arms dealer suckling on the State's
teats will say NO, all wars are justified. Same for people who own oil
companies.
But tell a dead soldier's family what he was really fighting
for and they will want the death penalty.
PS Iraq was never about "weapons of mass destruction". And
Afganistan was never about destroying poppy fields.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
Google Fuchsia - 2021
Catrike Ryder
2024-12-24 15:16:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John B.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:53:16 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
There is probably no justification for discussions (in the U.S.) in
favor of Morality.
After all, from 1783 to the present the U.S.has been at war for nearly
all of its history.
"Since The United States of America was founded in 1776, this country
has been in war for 222 years. That is, the 93% of its time since it
exists. Only 21 years were peaceful."
Are you suggesting that war is unconditionally immoral?
Depends who you ask. An arms dealer suckling on the State's
teats will say NO, all wars are justified. Same for people who own oil
companies.
But tell a dead soldier's family what he was really fighting
for and they will want the death penalty.
PS Iraq was never about "weapons of mass destruction". And
Afganistan was never about destroying poppy fields.
[]'s
Morality is a subjective evaluation.

--
C'est bon
Soloman
Shadow
2024-12-24 17:15:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 10:16:32 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:53:16 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
There is probably no justification for discussions (in the U.S.) in
favor of Morality.
After all, from 1783 to the present the U.S.has been at war for nearly
all of its history.
"Since The United States of America was founded in 1776, this country
has been in war for 222 years. That is, the 93% of its time since it
exists. Only 21 years were peaceful."
Are you suggesting that war is unconditionally immoral?
Depends who you ask. An arms dealer suckling on the State's
teats will say NO, all wars are justified. Same for people who own oil
companies.
But tell a dead soldier's family what he was really fighting
for and they will want the death penalty.
PS Iraq was never about "weapons of mass destruction". And
Afganistan was never about destroying poppy fields.
[]'s
Morality is a subjective evaluation.
Yes, which is why doctors test people's moral values to
determine if they are psychopaths. You need to do various tests,
because the results can be subjective.
Psychopaths learn to mimic normal people, but there's always a
giveaway, like defending murder if it makes you richer or if the
victim was not <insert your favorite race/party/religion/nationality
etc here>
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
Google Fuchsia - 2021
cyclintom
2024-12-25 18:25:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John B.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:53:16 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
There is probably no justification for discussions (in the U.S.) in
favor of Morality.
After all, from 1783 to the present the U.S.has been at war for nearly
all of its history.
"Since The United States of America was founded in 1776, this country
has been in war for 222 years. That is, the 93% of its time since it
exists. Only 21 years were peaceful."
Are you suggesting that war is unconditionally immoral?
Depends who you ask. An arms dealer suckling on the State's
teats will say NO, all wars are justified. Same for people who own oil
companies.
But tell a dead soldier's family what he was really fighting
for and they will want the death penalty.
PS Iraq was never about "weapons of mass destruction". And
Afganistan was never about destroying poppy fields.
[]'s
None of the wars since Korea have been about anything but financing arms dealers and CIA expansion.
cyclintom
2024-12-25 18:24:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:10:43 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 00:15:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and
crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in
crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or
let him go.
<https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life
without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
In addition to the expense (in Tax Dollars!!!)...
Biden is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is officially against the
death penalty.
AFAIK there's no evidence it acts as a real deterrent.
Immoral (according to at least many experts in morality), expensive,
ineffective ...
<eyeroll> Seriously? "experts in morality?" Who might that be?
Morality is, of course, a subject evaluation.
Post by Frank Krygowski
What were the arguments in favor of it?
There is probably no justification for discussions (in the U.S.) in
favor of Morality.
After all, from 1783 to the present the U.S.has been at war for nearly
all of its history.
"Since The United States of America was founded in 1776, this country
has been in war for 222 years. That is, the 93% of its time since it
exists. Only 21 years were peaceful."
Are you suggesting that war is unconditionally immoral?
NOT unconditionally, but most of the wars that the US has participated in were NOT by the vote of the people. The CIA has started virtually sll of the wars since Korea. Our present war using the Ukraine as a go between is the definition in question. Two and a half generations of Ukrainians have died or fled to the USA. The Ukraine is now, as a country, lost. Russia NEVER wanted that war, they only wanted access to their Black Sea Naval Fleet. What do you want to bet that the murder of Russian Nationals by the Ukrainians which started the war wasn't orchestrated by the CIA? Presently Zalensky is a multimillionaire President for Life. This was sold by Bush and Obama as giving the Ukraine a chance for Democratic Rule.
zen cycle
2024-12-24 13:14:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John B.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 04:10:43 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 00:15:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and
crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in
crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or
let him go.
<https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life
without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
In addition to the expense (in Tax Dollars!!!)...
Biden is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is officially against the
death penalty.
AFAIK there's no evidence it acts as a real deterrent.
Immoral (according to at least many experts in morality), expensive,
ineffective ...
<eyeroll> Seriously? "experts in morality?" Who might that be?
Morality is, of course, a subject evaluation.
Post by Frank Krygowski
What were the arguments in favor of it?
There is probably no justification for discussions (in the U.S.) in
favor of Morality.
Since you obviously didn't read the article, here's this little tidbit:
"[Laura] Hobb’s father, Jerry Hobbs.....was falsely imprisoned for five
years awaiting trial before Avila-Torrez was determined to be Laura’s
actual killer. "

If death penalty proponents had their way, the father would have been
executed for a crime he didn't commit. This, exactly, was the reason
Governor George Ryan issued a moratorium in 2000 and the state abolished
the death penalty in 2011.
Post by John B.
After all, from 1783 to the present the U.S.has been at war for nearly
all of its history.
"Since The United States of America was founded in 1776, this country
has been in war for 222 years. That is, the 93% of its time since it
exists. Only 21 years were peaceful."
cyclintom
2024-12-25 17:44:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"[Laura] Hobb?s father, Jerry Hobbs.....was falsely imprisoned for five
years awaiting trial before Avila-Torrez was determined to be Laura?s
actual killer. "
If death penalty proponents had their way, the father would have been
executed for a crime he didn't commit. This, exactly, was the reason
Governor George Ryan issued a moratorium in 2000 and the state abolished
the death penalty in 2011.
Our local dick sucker has never been on a jury and he doesn't understand one of the things at work from reducing the death sentence to life in prison. Neither the DA's nor the juries take anywhere near as clear a line at "Beyond the Shadow of a Doubt" and reduce it to Beyond a Reasonable Doubt which DA's are happy to build a case around since it isn't their lives at stake.
AMuzi
2024-12-25 19:09:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by cyclintom
"[Laura] Hobb?s father, Jerry Hobbs.....was falsely imprisoned for five
years awaiting trial before Avila-Torrez was determined to be Laura?s
actual killer. "
If death penalty proponents had their way, the father would have been
executed for a crime he didn't commit. This, exactly, was the reason
Governor George Ryan issued a moratorium in 2000 and the state abolished
the death penalty in 2011.
Our local dick sucker has never been on a jury and he doesn't understand one of the things at work from reducing the death sentence to life in prison. Neither the DA's nor the juries take anywhere near as clear a line at "Beyond the Shadow of a Doubt" and reduce it to Beyond a Reasonable Doubt which DA's are happy to build a case around since it isn't their lives at stake.
You might find your arguments more persuasive by omitting
the 3d and 4th word above.

Or not, but it couldn't hurt.
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
cyclintom
2024-12-26 00:24:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
Post by cyclintom
"[Laura] Hobb?s father, Jerry Hobbs.....was falsely imprisoned for five
years awaiting trial before Avila-Torrez was determined to be Laura?s
actual killer. "
If death penalty proponents had their way, the father would have been
executed for a crime he didn't commit. This, exactly, was the reason
Governor George Ryan issued a moratorium in 2000 and the state abolished
the death penalty in 2011.
Our local dick sucker has never been on a jury and he doesn't understand one of the things at work from reducing the death sentence to life in prison. Neither the DA's nor the juries take anywhere near as clear a line at "Beyond the Shadow of a Doubt" and reduce it to Beyond a Reasonable Doubt which DA's are happy to build a case around since it isn't their lives at stake.
You might find your arguments more persuasive by omitting
the 3d and 4th word above.
Or not, but it couldn't hurt.
I don't find the need to persuade anyone that child murderers should be treated with kid gloves.I have been on the jury for pediphiles and after one look at the jury after initial testimony (for the defense mind you) his lawyer recommended that he take a deal and he did. That the parents didn't walk over and twist his head off I couldn't say. There was an entire jury ready to say "I didn't see a thing".

When you try someone for "above reasonable doubt", DA's are looking for a career building event and will proudly put the wrong man in prison for life. Trying someone on the grounds of "above a shadow of a doubt" they have to really make a case such as having eye witnesses.
Zen Cycle
2024-12-26 14:51:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by cyclintom
Post by AMuzi
Post by cyclintom
"[Laura] Hobb?s father, Jerry Hobbs.....was falsely imprisoned for five
years awaiting trial before Avila-Torrez was determined to be Laura?s
actual killer. "
If death penalty proponents had their way, the father would have been
executed for a crime he didn't commit. This, exactly, was the reason
Governor George Ryan issued a moratorium in 2000 and the state abolished
the death penalty in 2011.
Our local dick sucker has never been on a jury and he doesn't understand one of the things at work from reducing the death sentence to life in prison. Neither the DA's nor the juries take anywhere near as clear a line at "Beyond the Shadow of a Doubt" and reduce it to Beyond a Reasonable Doubt which DA's are happy to build a case around since it isn't their lives at stake.
You might find your arguments more persuasive by omitting
the 3d and 4th word above.
Or not, but it couldn't hurt.
I don't find the need to persuade anyone that child murderers should be treated with kid gloves.I have been on the jury for pediphiles
Sure ya were - was that before or after your career as a business
development manager?
Post by cyclintom
and after one look at the jury after initial testimony (for the defense mind you) his lawyer recommended that he take a deal and he did. That the parents didn't walk over and twist his head off I couldn't say. There was an entire jury ready to say "I didn't see a thing".
When you try someone for "above reasonable doubt", DA's are looking for a career building event and will proudly put the wrong man in prison for life. Trying someone on the grounds of "above a shadow of a doubt" they have to really make a case such as having eye witnesses.
--
Add xx to reply
Zen Cycle
2024-12-26 14:50:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by cyclintom
"[Laura] Hobb?s father, Jerry Hobbs.....was falsely imprisoned for five
years awaiting trial before Avila-Torrez was determined to be Laura?s
actual killer. "
If death penalty proponents had their way, the father would have been
executed for a crime he didn't commit. This, exactly, was the reason
Governor George Ryan issued a moratorium in 2000 and the state abolished
the death penalty in 2011.
Our local dick sucker has never been on a jury and he doesn't
understand one of the things at work from reducing the death sentence
to life in prison. Neither the DA's nor the juries take anywhere near
as clear a line at "Beyond the Shadow of a Doubt" and reduce it to
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt which DA's are happy to build a case around
since it isn't their lives at stake.
You might find your arguments more persuasive by omitting the 3d and 4th
word above.
Or not, but it couldn't hurt.
In addition to that, he might find it more persuasive to actually
addressed the issues raised in the message he's responding to.
--
Add xx to reply
Zen Cycle
2024-12-26 16:26:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by cyclintom
"[Laura] Hobb?s father, Jerry Hobbs.....was falsely imprisoned for five
years awaiting trial before Avila-Torrez was determined to be Laura?s
actual killer. "
If death penalty proponents had their way, the father would have been
executed for a crime he didn't commit. This, exactly, was the reason
Governor George Ryan issued a moratorium in 2000 and the state abolished
the death penalty in 2011.
Our local dick sucker has never been on a jury and he doesn't understand one of the things at work from reducing the death sentence to life in prison.
Why am I not surprised you know a local dick sucker?
Post by cyclintom
Neither the DA's nor the juries take anywhere near as clear a line at "Beyond the Shadow of a Doubt" and reduce it to Beyond a Reasonable Doubt which DA's are happy to build a case around since it isn't their lives at stake.
--
Add xx to reply
cyclintom
2024-12-25 18:14:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 00:15:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and
crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in
crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or
let him go.
<https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life
without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
In addition to the expense (in Tax Dollars!!!)...
Biden is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is officially against the
death penalty.
AFAIK there's no evidence it acts as a real deterrent.
Immoral (according to at least many experts in morality), expensive,
ineffective ...
<eyeroll> Seriously? "experts in morality?" Who might that be?
Morality is, of course, a subject evaluation.
Post by Frank Krygowski
What were the arguments in favor of it?
Polling indicated that the majority is in favor of it... and yes,
that is an argument in favor of it.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1606/Death-Penalty.aspx
Liebermann has neither judgement nor morals. Obviously polls like that go with public sentiment that are driven not by logic, but by present popular opinions,
Roger Merriman
2024-12-24 12:09:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and
crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in
crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or
let him go.
<https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life
without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
In addition to the expense (in Tax Dollars!!!)...
Biden is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is officially against the
death penalty.
They also have significant problems with Pedophilia and protecting folks
within the Catholic church.
Post by Frank Krygowski
AFAIK there's no evidence it acts as a real deterrent.
I’m told so yes, ie the punishment be that long terms of death doesn’t
alter such crimes.
Post by Frank Krygowski
Immoral (according to at least many experts in morality), expensive,
ineffective ...
What were the arguments in favor of it?
It’s vengeance eye for eye rather than justice.

Which is broadly what the last hangmen in uk felt.

Roger Merriman
Catrike Ryder
2024-12-24 12:16:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger Merriman
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and
crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in
crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or
let him go.
<https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life
without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
In addition to the expense (in Tax Dollars!!!)...
Biden is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is officially against the
death penalty.
They also have significant problems with Pedophilia and protecting folks
within the Catholic church.
Post by Frank Krygowski
AFAIK there's no evidence it acts as a real deterrent.
IÂ’m told so yes, ie the punishment be that long terms of death doesnÂ’t
alter such crimes.
Post by Frank Krygowski
Immoral (according to at least many experts in morality), expensive,
ineffective ...
What were the arguments in favor of it?
ItÂ’s vengeance eye for eye rather than justice.
Which is broadly what the last hangmen in uk felt.
Roger Merriman
Justice is a subjective evaluation.

--
C'est bon
Soloman
AMuzi
2024-12-24 13:38:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by Roger Merriman
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and
crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in
crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or
let him go.
<https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life
without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
In addition to the expense (in Tax Dollars!!!)...
Biden is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is officially against the
death penalty.
They also have significant problems with Pedophilia and protecting folks
within the Catholic church.
Post by Frank Krygowski
AFAIK there's no evidence it acts as a real deterrent.
I’m told so yes, ie the punishment be that long terms of death doesn’t
alter such crimes.
Post by Frank Krygowski
Immoral (according to at least many experts in morality), expensive,
ineffective ...
What were the arguments in favor of it?
It’s vengeance eye for eye rather than justice.
Which is broadly what the last hangmen in uk felt.
Roger Merriman
Justice is a subjective evaluation.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
Necessarily.
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Frank Krygowski
2024-12-25 00:47:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Catrike Ryder
Justice is a subjective evaluation.
Oh good grief. "Subjective evaluation": Our tricycle rider's latest
overused trope, intended to shut off discussion that makes him feel out
of his depth.

I think we're seeing an unfortunate side effect of democratic ideals.
When the people hear the phrase "All men are created equal" some of them
decided "My ideas are just as valid as anyone's, including the greatest
of geniuses who have devoted their entire life to studying the issue at
hand." Which is nonsense, of course.

According to Abraham Lincoln, the founders did not mean that "all were
equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity."

Especially intellect. It's blindingly obvious that those who have
studied nothing but their own daydreams are very confident that their
daydreams are completely valid.

It's Dunning-Kruger at its best.
--
- Frank Krygowski
AMuzi
2024-12-25 00:57:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Catrike Ryder
Justice is a subjective evaluation.
Oh good grief. "Subjective evaluation":  Our tricycle
rider's latest overused trope, intended to shut off
discussion that makes him feel out of his depth.
I think we're seeing an unfortunate side effect of
democratic ideals. When the people hear the phrase "All men
are created equal" some of them decided "My ideas are just
as valid as anyone's, including the greatest of geniuses who
have devoted their entire life to studying the issue at
hand." Which is nonsense, of course.
According to Abraham Lincoln, the founders did not mean that
"all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral
developments, or social capacity."
Especially intellect. It's blindingly obvious that those who
have studied nothing but their own daydreams are very
confident that their daydreams are completely valid.
It's Dunning-Kruger at its best.
Law is a settled question at any point in time, usually by
compromise of various viewpoints. But to be an effective
law, society must accept it as such (if not wholly onboard).

Justice is unlike law and is, as Mr Tricycle notes, entirely
subjective. Disagreements abound on what constitutes
justice for any given set of facts.
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Catrike Ryder
2024-12-25 01:47:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
Post by Catrike Ryder
Justice is a subjective evaluation.
Oh good grief. "Subjective evaluation":  Our tricycle
rider's latest overused trope, intended to shut off
discussion that makes him feel out of his depth.
I think we're seeing an unfortunate side effect of
democratic ideals. When the people hear the phrase "All men
are created equal" some of them decided "My ideas are just
as valid as anyone's, including the greatest of geniuses who
have devoted their entire life to studying the issue at
hand." Which is nonsense, of course.
According to Abraham Lincoln, the founders did not mean that
"all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral
developments, or social capacity."
Especially intellect. It's blindingly obvious that those who
have studied nothing but their own daydreams are very
confident that their daydreams are completely valid.
It's Dunning-Kruger at its best.
Law is a settled question at any point in time, usually by
compromise of various viewpoints. But to be an effective
law, society must accept it as such (if not wholly onboard).
Justice is unlike law and is, as Mr Tricycle notes, entirely
subjective. Disagreements abound on what constitutes
justice for any given set of facts.
I never understood the concept that a person's should consider their
ideas as invalid unless someone else validated them, but it seems that
some people practice that phillosophy.

--
C'est bon
Soloman
Catrike Ryder
2024-12-25 01:17:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 19:47:05 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Catrike Ryder
Justice is a subjective evaluation.
Oh good grief. "Subjective evaluation": Our tricycle rider's latest
overused trope, intended to shut off discussion that makes him feel out
of his depth.
Apparently, the concepts of subjective and objective are over
Krygowski's low brow.
Post by Frank Krygowski
I think we're seeing an unfortunate side effect of democratic ideals.
When the people hear the phrase "All men are created equal" some of them
decided "My ideas are just as valid as anyone's, including the greatest
of geniuses who have devoted their entire life to studying the issue at
hand." Which is nonsense, of course.
Actually, the value of everyone's ideas are simply what other people
choose to put on them.
Post by Frank Krygowski
According to Abraham Lincoln, the founders did not mean that "all were
equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity."
Especially intellect. It's blindingly obvious that those who have
studied nothing but their own daydreams are very confident that their
daydreams are completely valid.
It's Dunning-Kruger at its best.
Intellect is simply the ability to reason. You either have it or you
don't. It's not something one can learn from a book or in a classroom.
Many people think they are intellectual because they can repeat what
somebody told them to say.

--
C'est bon
Soloman
John B.
2024-12-25 05:39:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 20:17:54 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 19:47:05 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Catrike Ryder
Justice is a subjective evaluation.
Oh good grief. "Subjective evaluation": Our tricycle rider's latest
overused trope, intended to shut off discussion that makes him feel out
of his depth.
Apparently, the concepts of subjective and objective are over
Krygowski's low brow.
Post by Frank Krygowski
I think we're seeing an unfortunate side effect of democratic ideals.
When the people hear the phrase "All men are created equal" some of them
decided "My ideas are just as valid as anyone's, including the greatest
of geniuses who have devoted their entire life to studying the issue at
hand." Which is nonsense, of course.
Actually, the value of everyone's ideas are simply what other people
choose to put on them.
Post by Frank Krygowski
According to Abraham Lincoln, the founders did not mean that "all were
equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity."
Especially intellect. It's blindingly obvious that those who have
studied nothing but their own daydreams are very confident that their
daydreams are completely valid.
It's Dunning-Kruger at its best.
Intellect is simply the ability to reason. You either have it or you
don't. It's not something one can learn from a book or in a classroom.
Many people think they are intellectual because they can repeat what
somebody told them to say.
You are over simplifying that as the ability to reason, and get a
useful solution, is, in part, often determined by their existing
knowledge.
--
Cheers,

John B.
Catrike Ryder
2024-12-25 08:54:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John B.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 20:17:54 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 19:47:05 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Catrike Ryder
Justice is a subjective evaluation.
Oh good grief. "Subjective evaluation": Our tricycle rider's latest
overused trope, intended to shut off discussion that makes him feel out
of his depth.
Apparently, the concepts of subjective and objective are over
Krygowski's low brow.
Post by Frank Krygowski
I think we're seeing an unfortunate side effect of democratic ideals.
When the people hear the phrase "All men are created equal" some of them
decided "My ideas are just as valid as anyone's, including the greatest
of geniuses who have devoted their entire life to studying the issue at
hand." Which is nonsense, of course.
Actually, the value of everyone's ideas are simply what other people
choose to put on them.
Post by Frank Krygowski
According to Abraham Lincoln, the founders did not mean that "all were
equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity."
Especially intellect. It's blindingly obvious that those who have
studied nothing but their own daydreams are very confident that their
daydreams are completely valid.
It's Dunning-Kruger at its best.
Intellect is simply the ability to reason. You either have it or you
don't. It's not something one can learn from a book or in a classroom.
Many people think they are intellectual because they can repeat what
somebody told them to say.
You are over simplifying that as the ability to reason, and get a
useful solution, is, in part, often determined by their existing
knowledge.
Yes, I'm not saying that existing knowledge isn't important, but a
thinking individual sorts through, picks and chooses the existing
knowledge base and then builds on it, while simply repeating it
doesn't require any thought. They teach parrots to repeat what they've
been told.

It requires some thought to understand that because a few people
who've gotten shot have a gun in their home doesn't mean that having a
gun in your home makes you more likely to get shot.

You can teach a parrot to say that it is.

--
C'est bon
Soloman
John B.
2024-12-25 09:53:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 03:54:58 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 20:17:54 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 19:47:05 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Catrike Ryder
Justice is a subjective evaluation.
Oh good grief. "Subjective evaluation": Our tricycle rider's latest
overused trope, intended to shut off discussion that makes him feel out
of his depth.
Apparently, the concepts of subjective and objective are over
Krygowski's low brow.
Post by Frank Krygowski
I think we're seeing an unfortunate side effect of democratic ideals.
When the people hear the phrase "All men are created equal" some of them
decided "My ideas are just as valid as anyone's, including the greatest
of geniuses who have devoted their entire life to studying the issue at
hand." Which is nonsense, of course.
Actually, the value of everyone's ideas are simply what other people
choose to put on them.
Post by Frank Krygowski
According to Abraham Lincoln, the founders did not mean that "all were
equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity."
Especially intellect. It's blindingly obvious that those who have
studied nothing but their own daydreams are very confident that their
daydreams are completely valid.
It's Dunning-Kruger at its best.
Intellect is simply the ability to reason. You either have it or you
don't. It's not something one can learn from a book or in a classroom.
Many people think they are intellectual because they can repeat what
somebody told them to say.
You are over simplifying that as the ability to reason, and get a
useful solution, is, in part, often determined by their existing
knowledge.
Yes, I'm not saying that existing knowledge isn't important, but a
thinking individual sorts through, picks and chooses the existing
knowledge base and then builds on it, while simply repeating it
doesn't require any thought. They teach parrots to repeat what they've
been told.
It requires some thought to understand that because a few people
who've gotten shot have a gun in their home doesn't mean that having a
gun in your home makes you more likely to get shot.
r
I've mentioned numerous times that my family had guns in the house for
3 generations with no one being shoot. But reality apparently has no
bearing on what some people want to be true. For some people 2+2
really is 5.
( George Orwell's 1984,)
Post by Catrike Ryder
You can teach a parrot to say that it is.
--
Cheers,

John B.
AMuzi
2024-12-25 14:32:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John B.
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 03:54:58 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 20:17:54 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 19:47:05 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Catrike Ryder
Justice is a subjective evaluation.
Oh good grief. "Subjective evaluation": Our tricycle rider's latest
overused trope, intended to shut off discussion that makes him feel out
of his depth.
Apparently, the concepts of subjective and objective are over
Krygowski's low brow.
Post by Frank Krygowski
I think we're seeing an unfortunate side effect of democratic ideals.
When the people hear the phrase "All men are created equal" some of them
decided "My ideas are just as valid as anyone's, including the greatest
of geniuses who have devoted their entire life to studying the issue at
hand." Which is nonsense, of course.
Actually, the value of everyone's ideas are simply what other people
choose to put on them.
Post by Frank Krygowski
According to Abraham Lincoln, the founders did not mean that "all were
equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity."
Especially intellect. It's blindingly obvious that those who have
studied nothing but their own daydreams are very confident that their
daydreams are completely valid.
It's Dunning-Kruger at its best.
Intellect is simply the ability to reason. You either have it or you
don't. It's not something one can learn from a book or in a classroom.
Many people think they are intellectual because they can repeat what
somebody told them to say.
You are over simplifying that as the ability to reason, and get a
useful solution, is, in part, often determined by their existing
knowledge.
Yes, I'm not saying that existing knowledge isn't important, but a
thinking individual sorts through, picks and chooses the existing
knowledge base and then builds on it, while simply repeating it
doesn't require any thought. They teach parrots to repeat what they've
been told.
It requires some thought to understand that because a few people
who've gotten shot have a gun in their home doesn't mean that having a
gun in your home makes you more likely to get shot.
r
I've mentioned numerous times that my family had guns in the house for
3 generations with no one being shoot. But reality apparently has no
bearing on what some people want to be true. For some people 2+2
really is 5.
( George Orwell's 1984,)
Post by Catrike Ryder
You can teach a parrot to say that it is.
+1
Girlfriend's farm, built around the original log cabin from
the 1830s, includes several well used and worn out rifles
from the 1890s onward (Winchester .30Win) through to the
most recent 2015. In all those generations, no firearm
incidents with human injury/death.
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
John B.
2024-12-26 00:54:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
Post by John B.
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 03:54:58 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 20:17:54 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 19:47:05 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Catrike Ryder
Justice is a subjective evaluation.
Oh good grief. "Subjective evaluation": Our tricycle rider's latest
overused trope, intended to shut off discussion that makes him feel out
of his depth.
Apparently, the concepts of subjective and objective are over
Krygowski's low brow.
Post by Frank Krygowski
I think we're seeing an unfortunate side effect of democratic ideals.
When the people hear the phrase "All men are created equal" some of them
decided "My ideas are just as valid as anyone's, including the greatest
of geniuses who have devoted their entire life to studying the issue at
hand." Which is nonsense, of course.
Actually, the value of everyone's ideas are simply what other people
choose to put on them.
Post by Frank Krygowski
According to Abraham Lincoln, the founders did not mean that "all were
equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity."
Especially intellect. It's blindingly obvious that those who have
studied nothing but their own daydreams are very confident that their
daydreams are completely valid.
It's Dunning-Kruger at its best.
Intellect is simply the ability to reason. You either have it or you
don't. It's not something one can learn from a book or in a classroom.
Many people think they are intellectual because they can repeat what
somebody told them to say.
You are over simplifying that as the ability to reason, and get a
useful solution, is, in part, often determined by their existing
knowledge.
Yes, I'm not saying that existing knowledge isn't important, but a
thinking individual sorts through, picks and chooses the existing
knowledge base and then builds on it, while simply repeating it
doesn't require any thought. They teach parrots to repeat what they've
been told.
It requires some thought to understand that because a few people
who've gotten shot have a gun in their home doesn't mean that having a
gun in your home makes you more likely to get shot.
r
I've mentioned numerous times that my family had guns in the house for
3 generations with no one being shoot. But reality apparently has no
bearing on what some people want to be true. For some people 2+2
really is 5.
( George Orwell's 1984,)
Post by Catrike Ryder
You can teach a parrot to say that it is.
+1
Girlfriend's farm, built around the original log cabin from
the 1830s, includes several well used and worn out rifles
from the 1890s onward (Winchester .30Win) through to the
most recent 2015. In all those generations, no firearm
incidents with human injury/death.
But actual happenings no longer count. Far better to rely in studies
carried out in carefully selected locations to prove one's argument.
--
Cheers,

John B.
AMuzi
2024-12-26 01:38:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
Post by John B.
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 03:54:58 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 20:17:54 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 19:47:05 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Catrike Ryder
Justice is a subjective evaluation.
Oh good grief. "Subjective evaluation": Our tricycle rider's latest
overused trope, intended to shut off discussion that makes him feel out
of his depth.
Apparently, the concepts of subjective and objective are over
Krygowski's low brow.
Post by Frank Krygowski
I think we're seeing an unfortunate side effect of democratic ideals.
When the people hear the phrase "All men are created equal" some of them
decided "My ideas are just as valid as anyone's, including the greatest
of geniuses who have devoted their entire life to studying the issue at
hand." Which is nonsense, of course.
Actually, the value of everyone's ideas are simply what other people
choose to put on them.
Post by Frank Krygowski
According to Abraham Lincoln, the founders did not mean that "all were
equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity."
Especially intellect. It's blindingly obvious that those who have
studied nothing but their own daydreams are very confident that their
daydreams are completely valid.
It's Dunning-Kruger at its best.
Intellect is simply the ability to reason. You either have it or you
don't. It's not something one can learn from a book or in a classroom.
Many people think they are intellectual because they can repeat what
somebody told them to say.
You are over simplifying that as the ability to reason, and get a
useful solution, is, in part, often determined by their existing
knowledge.
Yes, I'm not saying that existing knowledge isn't important, but a
thinking individual sorts through, picks and chooses the existing
knowledge base and then builds on it, while simply repeating it
doesn't require any thought. They teach parrots to repeat what they've
been told.
It requires some thought to understand that because a few people
who've gotten shot have a gun in their home doesn't mean that having a
gun in your home makes you more likely to get shot.
r
I've mentioned numerous times that my family had guns in the house for
3 generations with no one being shoot. But reality apparently has no
bearing on what some people want to be true. For some people 2+2
really is 5.
( George Orwell's 1984,)
Post by Catrike Ryder
You can teach a parrot to say that it is.
+1
Girlfriend's farm, built around the original log cabin from
the 1830s, includes several well used and worn out rifles
from the 1890s onward (Winchester .30Win) through to the
most recent 2015. In all those generations, no firearm
incidents with human injury/death.
But actual happenings no longer count. Far better to rely in studies
carried out in carefully selected locations to prove one's argument.
Not even the worst example of ridiculous 'studies'

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/FESTIVUS-REPORT-2024.pdf

Highlights:

Snack Attack: The Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) awarded a $2 million grant to study kids looking at
Facebook ads about food

Oh Rats! HHS Spends Nearly Half a Million on a Depressing
Study of Lonely, Starved Rats: The Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) spent $419,470 to determine if
lonely rats seek cocaine more than happy rats
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Catrike Ryder
2024-12-26 09:30:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
Post by John B.
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 03:54:58 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 20:17:54 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 19:47:05 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Catrike Ryder
Justice is a subjective evaluation.
Oh good grief. "Subjective evaluation": Our tricycle rider's latest
overused trope, intended to shut off discussion that makes him feel out
of his depth.
Apparently, the concepts of subjective and objective are over
Krygowski's low brow.
Post by Frank Krygowski
I think we're seeing an unfortunate side effect of democratic ideals.
When the people hear the phrase "All men are created equal" some of them
decided "My ideas are just as valid as anyone's, including the greatest
of geniuses who have devoted their entire life to studying the issue at
hand." Which is nonsense, of course.
Actually, the value of everyone's ideas are simply what other people
choose to put on them.
Post by Frank Krygowski
According to Abraham Lincoln, the founders did not mean that "all were
equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity."
Especially intellect. It's blindingly obvious that those who have
studied nothing but their own daydreams are very confident that their
daydreams are completely valid.
It's Dunning-Kruger at its best.
Intellect is simply the ability to reason. You either have it or you
don't. It's not something one can learn from a book or in a classroom.
Many people think they are intellectual because they can repeat what
somebody told them to say.
You are over simplifying that as the ability to reason, and get a
useful solution, is, in part, often determined by their existing
knowledge.
Yes, I'm not saying that existing knowledge isn't important, but a
thinking individual sorts through, picks and chooses the existing
knowledge base and then builds on it, while simply repeating it
doesn't require any thought. They teach parrots to repeat what they've
been told.
It requires some thought to understand that because a few people
who've gotten shot have a gun in their home doesn't mean that having a
gun in your home makes you more likely to get shot.
r
I've mentioned numerous times that my family had guns in the house for
3 generations with no one being shoot. But reality apparently has no
bearing on what some people want to be true. For some people 2+2
really is 5.
( George Orwell's 1984,)
Post by Catrike Ryder
You can teach a parrot to say that it is.
+1
Girlfriend's farm, built around the original log cabin from
the 1830s, includes several well used and worn out rifles
from the 1890s onward (Winchester .30Win) through to the
most recent 2015. In all those generations, no firearm
incidents with human injury/death.
But actual happenings no longer count. Far better to rely in studies
carried out in carefully selected locations to prove one's argument.
Believing that correlation implies causation can assist in the
subterfuge.

--
C'est bon
Soloman
Frank Krygowski
2024-12-26 17:01:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John B.
But actual happenings no longer count. Far better to rely in studies
carried out in carefully selected locations to prove one's argument.
What you're really saying is "There's an anecdote I like, so I'm going
to give it far more importance than thousands of incidents collected and
scientifically analyzed by researchers who were actually trying to learn
things."

So much for science!
--
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
2024-12-25 19:26:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John B.
I've mentioned numerous times that my family had guns in the house for
3 generations with no one being shoot. But reality apparently has no
bearing on what some people want to be true.
I think there's no way to logically converse with people who think one
or two anecdotes are more valid than reams of carefully gathered data.

So much for science!
--
- Frank Krygowski
AMuzi
2024-12-25 20:25:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
I've mentioned numerous times that my family had guns in
the house for
3 generations with no one being shoot. But reality
apparently has no
bearing on what some people want to be true.
I think there's no way to logically converse with people who
think one or two anecdotes are more valid than reams of
carefully gathered data.
So much for science!
For actual numbers:

400 million civilian firearms with just under 20,000 firearm
homicides per year, one per 20,000 firearms.

https://usafacts.org/data-projects/firearms-suicides

About 100 million bicycles

https://electronwheel.com/bike-facts-and-statistics/

for about 1300 deaths, one per 73,528 bicycles


https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/bicycle-deaths/

Which is a lower rate, only 27% of the likelihood of death
per bicycle as per firearm.

283,400,986 autos and light trucks in USA

https://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/how-many-cars-are-in-the-us.html

with 44,534 auto/ light truck deaths, one per 6363 vehicles.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm

That's over 3x (3.14) more dangerous per vehicle as per firearm.


For an anecdote, all four of my firearms have been oiled and
cased, undisturbed in any way, for well over a month. Not
one of them has jumped up and wrought mayhem. Not even a
little bit.
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Frank Krygowski
2024-12-26 00:13:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
I've mentioned numerous times that my family had guns in the house for
3 generations with no one being shoot. But reality apparently has no
bearing on what some people want to be true.
I think there's no way to logically converse with people who think one
or two anecdotes are more valid than reams of carefully gathered data.
So much for science!
400 million civilian firearms with just under 20,000 firearm homicides
per year, one per 20,000 firearms.
https://usafacts.org/data-projects/firearms-suicides
About 100 million bicycles
https://electronwheel.com/bike-facts-and-statistics/
for about 1300 deaths, one per 73,528 bicycles
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/bicycle-
deaths/
Which is a lower rate, only 27% of the likelihood of death per bicycle
as per firearm.
283,400,986 autos and light trucks in USA
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/how-many-cars-are-in-the-us.html
with 44,534 auto/ light truck deaths, one per 6363 vehicles.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm
That's over 3x (3.14) more dangerous per vehicle as per firearm.
For an anecdote, all four of my firearms have been oiled and cased,
undisturbed in any way, for well over a month. Not one of them has
jumped up and wrought mayhem. Not even a little bit.
Nice try, Andrew, but that's a thorough and elaborate attempt at
distraction.

The issue specifically being discussed is whether there's more risk of
being shot - or killed by gunshot - when there is a gun in the house,
versus no gun in the house.

The data is clear, and not even close. Even accounting for differences
in neighborhood climate (or comparing houses that are both in the same
sorts of neighborhoods) if you have a gun in the house, it's more likely
that people will be harmed or killed by that gun.

Of course there are houses with guns that have not had that experience.
Just as there are people who smoked and did not die of lung cancer.
Nobody is claiming 100% of guns cause death, nor that 100% of gun owner
households have gun deaths. The evidence is that the risk is over twice
as high in those households, not 100%.

Citing bicycle crashes, car crashes, or any other source of harm are
attempts at distraction.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Catrike Ryder
2024-12-26 00:30:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 19:13:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
I've mentioned numerous times that my family had guns in the house for
3 generations with no one being shoot. But reality apparently has no
bearing on what some people want to be true.
I think there's no way to logically converse with people who think one
or two anecdotes are more valid than reams of carefully gathered data.
So much for science!
400 million civilian firearms with just under 20,000 firearm homicides
per year, one per 20,000 firearms.
https://usafacts.org/data-projects/firearms-suicides
About 100 million bicycles
https://electronwheel.com/bike-facts-and-statistics/
for about 1300 deaths, one per 73,528 bicycles
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/bicycle-
deaths/
Which is a lower rate, only 27% of the likelihood of death per bicycle
as per firearm.
283,400,986 autos and light trucks in USA
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/how-many-cars-are-in-the-us.html
with 44,534 auto/ light truck deaths, one per 6363 vehicles.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm
That's over 3x (3.14) more dangerous per vehicle as per firearm.
For an anecdote, all four of my firearms have been oiled and cased,
undisturbed in any way, for well over a month. Not one of them has
jumped up and wrought mayhem. Not even a little bit.
Nice try, Andrew, but that's a thorough and elaborate attempt at
distraction.
The issue specifically being discussed is whether there's more risk of
being shot - or killed by gunshot - when there is a gun in the house,
versus no gun in the house.
The data is clear, and not even close. Even accounting for differences
in neighborhood climate (or comparing houses that are both in the same
sorts of neighborhoods) if you have a gun in the house, it's more likely
that people will be harmed or killed by that gun.
Nope, people who are likely to get killed with a gun often have guns
in their homes.
Post by Frank Krygowski
Of course there are houses with guns that have not had that experience.
Just as there are people who smoked and did not die of lung cancer.
Nobody is claiming 100% of guns cause death, nor that 100% of gun owner
households have gun deaths. The evidence is that the risk is over twice
as high in those households, not 100%.
Citing bicycle crashes, car crashes, or any other source of harm are
attempts at distraction.
<LOL> Krygowski insists that because a few people who got shot had a
gun in their home meant that having a gun in your home makes you more
likely to get shot. Krygowski simply doesn't have the intellectual
capacity to understand the data he's been fed.



--
C'est bon
Soloman
AMuzi
2024-12-26 01:31:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 19:13:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
I've mentioned numerous times that my family had guns in the house for
3 generations with no one being shoot. But reality apparently has no
bearing on what some people want to be true.
I think there's no way to logically converse with people who think one
or two anecdotes are more valid than reams of carefully gathered data.
So much for science!
400 million civilian firearms with just under 20,000 firearm homicides
per year, one per 20,000 firearms.
https://usafacts.org/data-projects/firearms-suicides
About 100 million bicycles
https://electronwheel.com/bike-facts-and-statistics/
for about 1300 deaths, one per 73,528 bicycles
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/bicycle-
deaths/
Which is a lower rate, only 27% of the likelihood of death per bicycle
as per firearm.
283,400,986 autos and light trucks in USA
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/how-many-cars-are-in-the-us.html
with 44,534 auto/ light truck deaths, one per 6363 vehicles.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm
That's over 3x (3.14) more dangerous per vehicle as per firearm.
For an anecdote, all four of my firearms have been oiled and cased,
undisturbed in any way, for well over a month. Not one of them has
jumped up and wrought mayhem. Not even a little bit.
Nice try, Andrew, but that's a thorough and elaborate attempt at
distraction.
The issue specifically being discussed is whether there's more risk of
being shot - or killed by gunshot - when there is a gun in the house,
versus no gun in the house.
The data is clear, and not even close. Even accounting for differences
in neighborhood climate (or comparing houses that are both in the same
sorts of neighborhoods) if you have a gun in the house, it's more likely
that people will be harmed or killed by that gun.
Nope, people who are likely to get killed with a gun often have guns
in their homes.
Post by Frank Krygowski
Of course there are houses with guns that have not had that experience.
Just as there are people who smoked and did not die of lung cancer.
Nobody is claiming 100% of guns cause death, nor that 100% of gun owner
households have gun deaths. The evidence is that the risk is over twice
as high in those households, not 100%.
Citing bicycle crashes, car crashes, or any other source of harm are
attempts at distraction.
<LOL> Krygowski insists that because a few people who got shot had a
gun in their home meant that having a gun in your home makes you more
likely to get shot. Krygowski simply doesn't have the intellectual
capacity to understand the data he's been fed.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Indeed. In rural USA where darned near every household has a
firearm or more for food and also keeping coyotes away fro
livestock, etc, humans are at extremely low risk of any
firearm injury.

In urban areas, which vary greatly in everything, the more
violent neighborhoods are where citizens are much more
likely to arm themselves. And prudently so. This Sunday for
example:

https://cwbchicago.com/2024/12/chicago-news-shotspotter-south-shore-burglary-progress.html

As Mr Krygowski notes, and he's correct in this, owning a
firearm may be necessary and prudent but is not always
sufficient:

https://abc11.com/post/wrong-house-was-targeted-lower-merion-home-invasion-murder-andrew-gaudio-pennsylvania-da/15669675/

Merely owning a firearm would not have mattered to a 61 year
old woman, executed in her own bed, asleep.
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Catrike Ryder
2024-12-26 09:33:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 19:13:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
I've mentioned numerous times that my family had guns in the house for
3 generations with no one being shoot. But reality apparently has no
bearing on what some people want to be true.
I think there's no way to logically converse with people who think one
or two anecdotes are more valid than reams of carefully gathered data.
So much for science!
400 million civilian firearms with just under 20,000 firearm homicides
per year, one per 20,000 firearms.
https://usafacts.org/data-projects/firearms-suicides
About 100 million bicycles
https://electronwheel.com/bike-facts-and-statistics/
for about 1300 deaths, one per 73,528 bicycles
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/bicycle-
deaths/
Which is a lower rate, only 27% of the likelihood of death per bicycle
as per firearm.
283,400,986 autos and light trucks in USA
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/how-many-cars-are-in-the-us.html
with 44,534 auto/ light truck deaths, one per 6363 vehicles.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm
That's over 3x (3.14) more dangerous per vehicle as per firearm.
For an anecdote, all four of my firearms have been oiled and cased,
undisturbed in any way, for well over a month. Not one of them has
jumped up and wrought mayhem. Not even a little bit.
Nice try, Andrew, but that's a thorough and elaborate attempt at
distraction.
The issue specifically being discussed is whether there's more risk of
being shot - or killed by gunshot - when there is a gun in the house,
versus no gun in the house.
The data is clear, and not even close. Even accounting for differences
in neighborhood climate (or comparing houses that are both in the same
sorts of neighborhoods) if you have a gun in the house, it's more likely
that people will be harmed or killed by that gun.
Nope, people who are likely to get killed with a gun often have guns
in their homes.
Post by Frank Krygowski
Of course there are houses with guns that have not had that experience.
Just as there are people who smoked and did not die of lung cancer.
Nobody is claiming 100% of guns cause death, nor that 100% of gun owner
households have gun deaths. The evidence is that the risk is over twice
as high in those households, not 100%.
Citing bicycle crashes, car crashes, or any other source of harm are
attempts at distraction.
<LOL> Krygowski insists that because a few people who got shot had a
gun in their home meant that having a gun in your home makes you more
likely to get shot. Krygowski simply doesn't have the intellectual
capacity to understand the data he's been fed.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Indeed. In rural USA where darned near every household has a
firearm or more for food and also keeping coyotes away fro
livestock, etc, humans are at extremely low risk of any
firearm injury.
In urban areas, which vary greatly in everything, the more
violent neighborhoods are where citizens are much more
likely to arm themselves. And prudently so. This Sunday for
https://cwbchicago.com/2024/12/chicago-news-shotspotter-south-shore-burglary-progress.html
As Mr Krygowski notes, and he's correct in this, owning a
firearm may be necessary and prudent but is not always
https://abc11.com/post/wrong-house-was-targeted-lower-merion-home-invasion-murder-andrew-gaudio-pennsylvania-da/15669675/
Merely owning a firearm would not have mattered to a 61 year
old woman, executed in her own bed, asleep.
There's very little risk in owning a gun, as millions, perhaps
billions of gun owners have demonstrated over several contraries.

People get shot for many reasons, and some may have got shot because
they had a gun in their home, but believing that the gun alone was the
reason and that there were no other extenuating reasons is
ridiculously illogical.

--
C'est bon
Soloman
Frank Krygowski
2024-12-26 16:06:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In urban areas, which vary greatly in everything, the more violent
neighborhoods are where citizens are much more likely to arm themselves.
And prudently so.
Again, the research I cited deliberately accounted for that.

In order to cling to your argument, you keep pretending the research
didn't take neighborhood characteristics into account, and didn't
examine homes with and without guns in the same neighborhoods.

In order to cling to his argument, the guy who rides a tricycle keeps
pretending the research involves only a few shootings.

Neither of those pretenses are honest.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Catrike Ryder
2024-12-26 16:49:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 11:06:09 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
In urban areas, which vary greatly in everything, the more violent
neighborhoods are where citizens are much more likely to arm themselves.
And prudently so.
Again, the research I cited deliberately accounted for that.
In order to cling to your argument, you keep pretending the research
didn't take neighborhood characteristics into account, and didn't
examine homes with and without guns in the same neighborhoods.
In order to cling to his argument, the guy who rides a tricycle keeps
pretending the research involves only a few shootings.
Neither of those pretenses are honest.
<chuckle> None of Krygowski's cites showed evidence that anyone died
of even got shot for no other reason than that there was a gun in the
house. IOW, they dishonestly and ignorantly claimed that simple
correlation implied causation, ignoring any other extenuating
conditions. Krygowski, of course, nodded his approval of the
fallacious nonsense.

Some people think and do what they're told to think and do by people
they have chosen to tell them what to think and do. The anti-assault
rifle loonies are examples of that.


--
C'est bon
Soloman
AMuzi
2024-12-26 01:10:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
I've mentioned numerous times that my family had guns in
the house for
3 generations with no one being shoot. But reality
apparently has no
bearing on what some people want to be true.
I think there's no way to logically converse with people
who think one or two anecdotes are more valid than reams
of carefully gathered data.
So much for science!
400 million civilian firearms with just under 20,000
firearm homicides per year, one per 20,000 firearms.
https://usafacts.org/data-projects/firearms-suicides
About 100 million bicycles
https://electronwheel.com/bike-facts-and-statistics/
for about 1300 deaths, one per 73,528 bicycles
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-
topics/bicycle- deaths/
Which is a lower rate, only 27% of the likelihood of death
per bicycle as per firearm.
283,400,986 autos and light trucks in USA
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/how-many-cars-
are-in-the-us.html
with 44,534 auto/ light truck deaths, one per 6363 vehicles.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm
That's over 3x (3.14) more dangerous per vehicle as per
firearm.
For an anecdote, all four of my firearms have been oiled
and cased, undisturbed in any way, for well over a month.
Not one of them has jumped up and wrought mayhem. Not even
a little bit.
Nice try, Andrew, but that's a thorough and elaborate
attempt at distraction.
The issue specifically being discussed is whether there's
more risk of being shot - or killed by gunshot - when there
is a gun in the house, versus no gun in the house.
The data is clear, and not even close. Even accounting for
differences in neighborhood climate (or comparing houses
that are both in the same sorts of neighborhoods) if you
have a gun in the house, it's more likely that people will
be harmed or killed by that gun.
Of course there are houses with guns that have not had that
experience. Just as there are people who smoked and did not
die of lung cancer. Nobody is claiming 100% of guns cause
death, nor that 100% of gun owner households have gun
deaths. The evidence is that the risk is over twice as high
in those households, not 100%.
Citing bicycle crashes, car crashes, or any other source of
harm are attempts at distraction.
That's still wrong.

The number of firearms and the number of households with
firearms are gargantuan. A selected subset (per 'surveys')
is a selected subset.

Overall, the data just don't support the assertion as Mr
Slocumb has noted repeatedly, with numbers. States with
less restrictive regulation and higher ownership rates also
have lower homicide rates.

That would be a more extreme difference if one subtracted
the dysfunctional cities within them. Missouri, for example,
is extremely safe for firearms except for St Louis which has
a firearm homicide rate higher than Chicago.

It's just not a hardware phenomenon. It's a social,
cultural, moral problem as yet utterly unaddressed.
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Frank Krygowski
2024-12-26 16:17:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
I've mentioned numerous times that my family had guns in the house for
3 generations with no one being shoot. But reality apparently has no
bearing on what some people want to be true.
I think there's no way to logically converse with people who think
one or two anecdotes are more valid than reams of carefully gathered
data.
So much for science!
400 million civilian firearms with just under 20,000 firearm
homicides per year, one per 20,000 firearms.
https://usafacts.org/data-projects/firearms-suicides
About 100 million bicycles
https://electronwheel.com/bike-facts-and-statistics/
for about 1300 deaths, one per 73,528 bicycles
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety- topics/
bicycle- deaths/
Which is a lower rate, only 27% of the likelihood of death per
bicycle as per firearm.
283,400,986 autos and light trucks in USA
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/how-many-cars- are-in-the-
us.html
with 44,534 auto/ light truck deaths, one per 6363 vehicles.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm
That's over 3x (3.14) more dangerous per vehicle as per firearm.
For an anecdote, all four of my firearms have been oiled and cased,
undisturbed in any way, for well over a month. Not one of them has
jumped up and wrought mayhem. Not even a little bit.
Nice try, Andrew, but that's a thorough and elaborate attempt at
distraction.
The issue specifically being discussed is whether there's more risk of
being shot - or killed by gunshot - when there is a gun in the house,
versus no gun in the house.
The data is clear, and not even close. Even accounting for differences
in neighborhood climate (or comparing houses that are both in the same
sorts of neighborhoods) if you have a gun in the house, it's more
likely that people will be harmed or killed by that gun.
Of course there are houses with guns that have not had that
experience. Just as there are people who smoked and did not die of
lung cancer. Nobody is claiming 100% of guns cause death, nor that
100% of gun owner households have gun deaths. The evidence is that the
risk is over twice as high in those households, not 100%.
Citing bicycle crashes, car crashes, or any other source of harm are
attempts at distraction.
That's still wrong.
The number of firearms and the number of households with firearms are
gargantuan.  A selected subset (per 'surveys') is a selected subset.
Overall, the data just don't support the assertion as Mr Slocumb has
noted repeatedly, with numbers.  States with less restrictive regulation
and higher ownership rates also have lower homicide rates.
... while nations with more rational regulation and lower ownership
rates have far, far lower homicide rates.

The states John repeatedly points to are always very low density rural
states with intact hunting cultures. I assume the guns owned are those
like the ones he describes growing up with: hunting tools, not macho
toys with large magazines bought with "protection" as a supposed motive.
Post by AMuzi
That would be a more extreme difference if one subtracted the
dysfunctional cities within them. Missouri, for example, is extremely
safe for firearms except for St Louis which has a firearm homicide rate
higher than Chicago.
It's just not a hardware phenomenon. It's a social, cultural, moral
problem as yet utterly unaddressed.
It is a social, cultural and moral problem, and yes, we should be
working much harder at solving those problems. But without the promotion
and unrestricted availability of guns designed to kill humans, at least
one consequence of the social problems would be tremendously reduced.

After all, similar social problems occur in almost every other country.
For just one example, France has its own problems with oppressed
minorities suffering from lack of opportunity. But it has far, far lower
murder rates than the U.S. and gun murder rates that are microscopic
compared to ours.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Catrike Ryder
2024-12-26 16:52:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 11:17:43 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
I've mentioned numerous times that my family had guns in the house for
3 generations with no one being shoot. But reality apparently has no
bearing on what some people want to be true.
I think there's no way to logically converse with people who think
one or two anecdotes are more valid than reams of carefully gathered
data.
So much for science!
400 million civilian firearms with just under 20,000 firearm
homicides per year, one per 20,000 firearms.
https://usafacts.org/data-projects/firearms-suicides
About 100 million bicycles
https://electronwheel.com/bike-facts-and-statistics/
for about 1300 deaths, one per 73,528 bicycles
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety- topics/
bicycle- deaths/
Which is a lower rate, only 27% of the likelihood of death per
bicycle as per firearm.
283,400,986 autos and light trucks in USA
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/how-many-cars- are-in-the-
us.html
with 44,534 auto/ light truck deaths, one per 6363 vehicles.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm
That's over 3x (3.14) more dangerous per vehicle as per firearm.
For an anecdote, all four of my firearms have been oiled and cased,
undisturbed in any way, for well over a month. Not one of them has
jumped up and wrought mayhem. Not even a little bit.
Nice try, Andrew, but that's a thorough and elaborate attempt at
distraction.
The issue specifically being discussed is whether there's more risk of
being shot - or killed by gunshot - when there is a gun in the house,
versus no gun in the house.
The data is clear, and not even close. Even accounting for differences
in neighborhood climate (or comparing houses that are both in the same
sorts of neighborhoods) if you have a gun in the house, it's more
likely that people will be harmed or killed by that gun.
Of course there are houses with guns that have not had that
experience. Just as there are people who smoked and did not die of
lung cancer. Nobody is claiming 100% of guns cause death, nor that
100% of gun owner households have gun deaths. The evidence is that the
risk is over twice as high in those households, not 100%.
Citing bicycle crashes, car crashes, or any other source of harm are
attempts at distraction.
That's still wrong.
The number of firearms and the number of households with firearms are
gargantuan.  A selected subset (per 'surveys') is a selected subset.
Overall, the data just don't support the assertion as Mr Slocumb has
noted repeatedly, with numbers.  States with less restrictive regulation
and higher ownership rates also have lower homicide rates.
... while nations with more rational regulation and lower ownership
rates have far, far lower homicide rates.
The states John repeatedly points to are always very low density rural
states with intact hunting cultures. I assume the guns owned are those
like the ones he describes growing up with: hunting tools, not macho
toys with large magazines bought with "protection" as a supposed motive.
Post by AMuzi
That would be a more extreme difference if one subtracted the
dysfunctional cities within them. Missouri, for example, is extremely
safe for firearms except for St Louis which has a firearm homicide rate
higher than Chicago.
It's just not a hardware phenomenon. It's a social, cultural, moral
problem as yet utterly unaddressed.
It is a social, cultural and moral problem, and yes, we should be
working much harder at solving those problems. But without the promotion
and unrestricted availability of guns designed to kill humans, at least
one consequence of the social problems would be tremendously reduced.
Assumes facts not in evidence, as is common with Krygowski's nonsense
posts.
Post by Frank Krygowski
After all, similar social problems occur in almost every other country.
For just one example, France has its own problems with oppressed
minorities suffering from lack of opportunity. But it has far, far lower
murder rates than the U.S. and gun murder rates that are microscopic
compared to ours.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
John B.
2024-12-26 01:12:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 19:13:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
I've mentioned numerous times that my family had guns in the house for
3 generations with no one being shoot. But reality apparently has no
bearing on what some people want to be true.
I think there's no way to logically converse with people who think one
or two anecdotes are more valid than reams of carefully gathered data.
So much for science!
400 million civilian firearms with just under 20,000 firearm homicides
per year, one per 20,000 firearms.
https://usafacts.org/data-projects/firearms-suicides
About 100 million bicycles
https://electronwheel.com/bike-facts-and-statistics/
for about 1300 deaths, one per 73,528 bicycles
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/bicycle-
deaths/
Which is a lower rate, only 27% of the likelihood of death per bicycle
as per firearm.
283,400,986 autos and light trucks in USA
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/how-many-cars-are-in-the-us.html
with 44,534 auto/ light truck deaths, one per 6363 vehicles.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm
That's over 3x (3.14) more dangerous per vehicle as per firearm.
For an anecdote, all four of my firearms have been oiled and cased,
undisturbed in any way, for well over a month. Not one of them has
jumped up and wrought mayhem. Not even a little bit.
Nice try, Andrew, but that's a thorough and elaborate attempt at
distraction.
The issue specifically being discussed is whether there's more risk of
being shot - or killed by gunshot - when there is a gun in the house,
versus no gun in the house.
The data is clear, and not even close. Even accounting for differences
in neighborhood climate (or comparing houses that are both in the same
sorts of neighborhoods) if you have a gun in the house, it's more likely
that people will be harmed or killed by that gun.
Of course there are houses with guns that have not had that experience.
Just as there are people who smoked and did not die of lung cancer.
Nobody is claiming 100% of guns cause death, nor that 100% of gun owner
households have gun deaths. The evidence is that the risk is over twice
as high in those households, not 100%.
Citing bicycle crashes, car crashes, or any other source of harm are
attempts at distraction.
Ah yes but ignoring reality is equally as fault.Example, according to
FBI data Blacks (forgive the description as I'm not up to date on the
current politically correct term) who comprise something like 13% of
the U.S. population commit more then 50% of homicides in the U.S.
Do you suppose that a study made in a site with a large percent of
Black residents might, just possible, be a tiny bit different then a
site with fewer, or even no, Blacks?
--
Cheers,

John B.
AMuzi
2024-12-26 01:41:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 19:13:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
I've mentioned numerous times that my family had guns in the house for
3 generations with no one being shoot. But reality apparently has no
bearing on what some people want to be true.
I think there's no way to logically converse with people who think one
or two anecdotes are more valid than reams of carefully gathered data.
So much for science!
400 million civilian firearms with just under 20,000 firearm homicides
per year, one per 20,000 firearms.
https://usafacts.org/data-projects/firearms-suicides
About 100 million bicycles
https://electronwheel.com/bike-facts-and-statistics/
for about 1300 deaths, one per 73,528 bicycles
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/bicycle-
deaths/
Which is a lower rate, only 27% of the likelihood of death per bicycle
as per firearm.
283,400,986 autos and light trucks in USA
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/how-many-cars-are-in-the-us.html
with 44,534 auto/ light truck deaths, one per 6363 vehicles.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm
That's over 3x (3.14) more dangerous per vehicle as per firearm.
For an anecdote, all four of my firearms have been oiled and cased,
undisturbed in any way, for well over a month. Not one of them has
jumped up and wrought mayhem. Not even a little bit.
Nice try, Andrew, but that's a thorough and elaborate attempt at
distraction.
The issue specifically being discussed is whether there's more risk of
being shot - or killed by gunshot - when there is a gun in the house,
versus no gun in the house.
The data is clear, and not even close. Even accounting for differences
in neighborhood climate (or comparing houses that are both in the same
sorts of neighborhoods) if you have a gun in the house, it's more likely
that people will be harmed or killed by that gun.
Of course there are houses with guns that have not had that experience.
Just as there are people who smoked and did not die of lung cancer.
Nobody is claiming 100% of guns cause death, nor that 100% of gun owner
households have gun deaths. The evidence is that the risk is over twice
as high in those households, not 100%.
Citing bicycle crashes, car crashes, or any other source of harm are
attempts at distraction.
Ah yes but ignoring reality is equally as fault.Example, according to
FBI data Blacks (forgive the description as I'm not up to date on the
current politically correct term) who comprise something like 13% of
the U.S. population commit more then 50% of homicides in the U.S.
Do you suppose that a study made in a site with a large percent of
Black residents might, just possible, be a tiny bit different then a
site with fewer, or even no, Blacks?
True, but even more compelling is that homicide victims are
well over 50% black. But hey no one seems to care about that
when restricting lawful citizens' rights over rifles is more
entertaining than addressing the illegal pistols used in
almost all crime.
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
John B.
2024-12-26 03:43:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 19:13:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
I've mentioned numerous times that my family had guns in the house for
3 generations with no one being shoot. But reality apparently has no
bearing on what some people want to be true.
I think there's no way to logically converse with people who think one
or two anecdotes are more valid than reams of carefully gathered data.
So much for science!
400 million civilian firearms with just under 20,000 firearm homicides
per year, one per 20,000 firearms.
https://usafacts.org/data-projects/firearms-suicides
About 100 million bicycles
https://electronwheel.com/bike-facts-and-statistics/
for about 1300 deaths, one per 73,528 bicycles
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/bicycle-
deaths/
Which is a lower rate, only 27% of the likelihood of death per bicycle
as per firearm.
283,400,986 autos and light trucks in USA
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/how-many-cars-are-in-the-us.html
with 44,534 auto/ light truck deaths, one per 6363 vehicles.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm
That's over 3x (3.14) more dangerous per vehicle as per firearm.
For an anecdote, all four of my firearms have been oiled and cased,
undisturbed in any way, for well over a month. Not one of them has
jumped up and wrought mayhem. Not even a little bit.
Nice try, Andrew, but that's a thorough and elaborate attempt at
distraction.
The issue specifically being discussed is whether there's more risk of
being shot - or killed by gunshot - when there is a gun in the house,
versus no gun in the house.
The data is clear, and not even close. Even accounting for differences
in neighborhood climate (or comparing houses that are both in the same
sorts of neighborhoods) if you have a gun in the house, it's more likely
that people will be harmed or killed by that gun.
Of course there are houses with guns that have not had that experience.
Just as there are people who smoked and did not die of lung cancer.
Nobody is claiming 100% of guns cause death, nor that 100% of gun owner
households have gun deaths. The evidence is that the risk is over twice
as high in those households, not 100%.
Citing bicycle crashes, car crashes, or any other source of harm are
attempts at distraction.
Ah yes but ignoring reality is equally as fault.Example, according to
FBI data Blacks (forgive the description as I'm not up to date on the
current politically correct term) who comprise something like 13% of
the U.S. population commit more then 50% of homicides in the U.S.
Do you suppose that a study made in a site with a large percent of
Black residents might, just possible, be a tiny bit different then a
site with fewer, or even no, Blacks?
True, but even more compelling is that homicide victims are
well over 50% black. But hey no one seems to care about that
when restricting lawful citizens' rights over rifles is more
entertaining than addressing the illegal pistols used in
almost all crime.
And, some of those pistols were actually used in school shootings :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.
Catrike Ryder
2024-12-26 10:26:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 19:13:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
I've mentioned numerous times that my family had guns in the house for
3 generations with no one being shoot. But reality apparently has no
bearing on what some people want to be true.
I think there's no way to logically converse with people who think one
or two anecdotes are more valid than reams of carefully gathered data.
So much for science!
400 million civilian firearms with just under 20,000 firearm homicides
per year, one per 20,000 firearms.
https://usafacts.org/data-projects/firearms-suicides
About 100 million bicycles
https://electronwheel.com/bike-facts-and-statistics/
for about 1300 deaths, one per 73,528 bicycles
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/bicycle-
deaths/
Which is a lower rate, only 27% of the likelihood of death per bicycle
as per firearm.
283,400,986 autos and light trucks in USA
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/how-many-cars-are-in-the-us.html
with 44,534 auto/ light truck deaths, one per 6363 vehicles.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm
That's over 3x (3.14) more dangerous per vehicle as per firearm.
For an anecdote, all four of my firearms have been oiled and cased,
undisturbed in any way, for well over a month. Not one of them has
jumped up and wrought mayhem. Not even a little bit.
Nice try, Andrew, but that's a thorough and elaborate attempt at
distraction.
The issue specifically being discussed is whether there's more risk of
being shot - or killed by gunshot - when there is a gun in the house,
versus no gun in the house.
The data is clear, and not even close. Even accounting for differences
in neighborhood climate (or comparing houses that are both in the same
sorts of neighborhoods) if you have a gun in the house, it's more likely
that people will be harmed or killed by that gun.
Of course there are houses with guns that have not had that experience.
Just as there are people who smoked and did not die of lung cancer.
Nobody is claiming 100% of guns cause death, nor that 100% of gun owner
households have gun deaths. The evidence is that the risk is over twice
as high in those households, not 100%.
Citing bicycle crashes, car crashes, or any other source of harm are
attempts at distraction.
Ah yes but ignoring reality is equally as fault.Example, according to
FBI data Blacks (forgive the description as I'm not up to date on the
current politically correct term) who comprise something like 13% of
the U.S. population commit more then 50% of homicides in the U.S.
Do you suppose that a study made in a site with a large percent of
Black residents might, just possible, be a tiny bit different then a
site with fewer, or even no, Blacks?
True, but even more compelling is that homicide victims are
well over 50% black. But hey no one seems to care about that
when restricting lawful citizens' rights over rifles is more
entertaining than addressing the illegal pistols used in
almost all crime.
And, some of those pistols were actually used in school shootings :-)
The anti-assault rifle agenda began before most people even knew that
they were and was promoted by fools who couldn't differentiate between
semi-automatic and full automatic. Those fools (Biden is one of them)
took it as a slap in the face when the assault weapon ban died and
they couldn't get it renewed. They couldn't tolerate the indignity of
having their pet program slapped down, even though the ban made no
sense.

They've been trying to recover that loss of dignity ever since and
their group thinking sycophants march along in lockstep.

Some people think and do what they're told to think and do by people
they have chosen to tell them what to think and do. The anti-assault
rifle loonies are examples of that.

--
C'est bon
Soloman
AMuzi
2024-12-26 14:04:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 19:13:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
I've mentioned numerous times that my family had guns in the house for
3 generations with no one being shoot. But reality apparently has no
bearing on what some people want to be true.
I think there's no way to logically converse with people who think one
or two anecdotes are more valid than reams of carefully gathered data.
So much for science!
400 million civilian firearms with just under 20,000 firearm homicides
per year, one per 20,000 firearms.
https://usafacts.org/data-projects/firearms-suicides
About 100 million bicycles
https://electronwheel.com/bike-facts-and-statistics/
for about 1300 deaths, one per 73,528 bicycles
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/bicycle-
deaths/
Which is a lower rate, only 27% of the likelihood of death per bicycle
as per firearm.
283,400,986 autos and light trucks in USA
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/how-many-cars-are-in-the-us.html
with 44,534 auto/ light truck deaths, one per 6363 vehicles.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm
That's over 3x (3.14) more dangerous per vehicle as per firearm.
For an anecdote, all four of my firearms have been oiled and cased,
undisturbed in any way, for well over a month. Not one of them has
jumped up and wrought mayhem. Not even a little bit.
Nice try, Andrew, but that's a thorough and elaborate attempt at
distraction.
The issue specifically being discussed is whether there's more risk of
being shot - or killed by gunshot - when there is a gun in the house,
versus no gun in the house.
The data is clear, and not even close. Even accounting for differences
in neighborhood climate (or comparing houses that are both in the same
sorts of neighborhoods) if you have a gun in the house, it's more likely
that people will be harmed or killed by that gun.
Of course there are houses with guns that have not had that experience.
Just as there are people who smoked and did not die of lung cancer.
Nobody is claiming 100% of guns cause death, nor that 100% of gun owner
households have gun deaths. The evidence is that the risk is over twice
as high in those households, not 100%.
Citing bicycle crashes, car crashes, or any other source of harm are
attempts at distraction.
Ah yes but ignoring reality is equally as fault.Example, according to
FBI data Blacks (forgive the description as I'm not up to date on the
current politically correct term) who comprise something like 13% of
the U.S. population commit more then 50% of homicides in the U.S.
Do you suppose that a study made in a site with a large percent of
Black residents might, just possible, be a tiny bit different then a
site with fewer, or even no, Blacks?
True, but even more compelling is that homicide victims are
well over 50% black. But hey no one seems to care about that
when restricting lawful citizens' rights over rifles is more
entertaining than addressing the illegal pistols used in
almost all crime.
And, some of those pistols were actually used in school shootings :-)
The anti-assault rifle agenda began before most people even knew that
they were and was promoted by fools who couldn't differentiate between
semi-automatic and full automatic. Those fools (Biden is one of them)
took it as a slap in the face when the assault weapon ban died and
they couldn't get it renewed. They couldn't tolerate the indignity of
having their pet program slapped down, even though the ban made no
sense.
They've been trying to recover that loss of dignity ever since and
their group thinking sycophants march along in lockstep.
Some people think and do what they're told to think and do by people
they have chosen to tell them what to think and do. The anti-assault
rifle loonies are examples of that.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
It goes unsaid that Sturmgewehr are automatic weapons, not
AR platform semis. Words ought to matter, but sadly, no.
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
John B.
2024-12-26 15:06:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 19:13:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
I've mentioned numerous times that my family had guns in the house for
3 generations with no one being shoot. But reality apparently has no
bearing on what some people want to be true.
I think there's no way to logically converse with people who think one
or two anecdotes are more valid than reams of carefully gathered data.
So much for science!
400 million civilian firearms with just under 20,000 firearm homicides
per year, one per 20,000 firearms.
https://usafacts.org/data-projects/firearms-suicides
About 100 million bicycles
https://electronwheel.com/bike-facts-and-statistics/
for about 1300 deaths, one per 73,528 bicycles
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/bicycle-
deaths/
Which is a lower rate, only 27% of the likelihood of death per bicycle
as per firearm.
283,400,986 autos and light trucks in USA
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/how-many-cars-are-in-the-us.html
with 44,534 auto/ light truck deaths, one per 6363 vehicles.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm
That's over 3x (3.14) more dangerous per vehicle as per firearm.
For an anecdote, all four of my firearms have been oiled and cased,
undisturbed in any way, for well over a month. Not one of them has
jumped up and wrought mayhem. Not even a little bit.
Nice try, Andrew, but that's a thorough and elaborate attempt at
distraction.
The issue specifically being discussed is whether there's more risk of
being shot - or killed by gunshot - when there is a gun in the house,
versus no gun in the house.
The data is clear, and not even close. Even accounting for differences
in neighborhood climate (or comparing houses that are both in the same
sorts of neighborhoods) if you have a gun in the house, it's more likely
that people will be harmed or killed by that gun.
Of course there are houses with guns that have not had that experience.
Just as there are people who smoked and did not die of lung cancer.
Nobody is claiming 100% of guns cause death, nor that 100% of gun owner
households have gun deaths. The evidence is that the risk is over twice
as high in those households, not 100%.
Citing bicycle crashes, car crashes, or any other source of harm are
attempts at distraction.
Ah yes but ignoring reality is equally as fault.Example, according to
FBI data Blacks (forgive the description as I'm not up to date on the
current politically correct term) who comprise something like 13% of
the U.S. population commit more then 50% of homicides in the U.S.
Do you suppose that a study made in a site with a large percent of
Black residents might, just possible, be a tiny bit different then a
site with fewer, or even no, Blacks?
True, but even more compelling is that homicide victims are
well over 50% black. But hey no one seems to care about that
when restricting lawful citizens' rights over rifles is more
entertaining than addressing the illegal pistols used in
almost all crime.
And, some of those pistols were actually used in school shootings :-)
The anti-assault rifle agenda began before most people even knew that
they were and was promoted by fools who couldn't differentiate between
semi-automatic and full automatic. Those fools (Biden is one of them)
took it as a slap in the face when the assault weapon ban died and
they couldn't get it renewed. They couldn't tolerate the indignity of
having their pet program slapped down, even though the ban made no
sense.
They've been trying to recover that loss of dignity ever since and
their group thinking sycophants march along in lockstep.
Some people think and do what they're told to think and do by people
they have chosen to tell them what to think and do. The anti-assault
rifle loonies are examples of that.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
It goes unsaid that Sturmgewehr are automatic weapons, not
AR platform semis. Words ought to matter, but sadly, no.
Weren't the MP 43, MP 44, and StG 44 semi and full auto ?
--
Cheers,

John B.
AMuzi
2024-12-26 15:43:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 19:13:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
I've mentioned numerous times that my family had guns in the house for
3 generations with no one being shoot. But reality apparently has no
bearing on what some people want to be true.
I think there's no way to logically converse with people who think one
or two anecdotes are more valid than reams of carefully gathered data.
So much for science!
400 million civilian firearms with just under 20,000 firearm homicides
per year, one per 20,000 firearms.
https://usafacts.org/data-projects/firearms-suicides
About 100 million bicycles
https://electronwheel.com/bike-facts-and-statistics/
for about 1300 deaths, one per 73,528 bicycles
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/bicycle-
deaths/
Which is a lower rate, only 27% of the likelihood of death per bicycle
as per firearm.
283,400,986 autos and light trucks in USA
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/how-many-cars-are-in-the-us.html
with 44,534 auto/ light truck deaths, one per 6363 vehicles.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm
That's over 3x (3.14) more dangerous per vehicle as per firearm.
For an anecdote, all four of my firearms have been oiled and cased,
undisturbed in any way, for well over a month. Not one of them has
jumped up and wrought mayhem. Not even a little bit.
Nice try, Andrew, but that's a thorough and elaborate attempt at
distraction.
The issue specifically being discussed is whether there's more risk of
being shot - or killed by gunshot - when there is a gun in the house,
versus no gun in the house.
The data is clear, and not even close. Even accounting for differences
in neighborhood climate (or comparing houses that are both in the same
sorts of neighborhoods) if you have a gun in the house, it's more likely
that people will be harmed or killed by that gun.
Of course there are houses with guns that have not had that experience.
Just as there are people who smoked and did not die of lung cancer.
Nobody is claiming 100% of guns cause death, nor that 100% of gun owner
households have gun deaths. The evidence is that the risk is over twice
as high in those households, not 100%.
Citing bicycle crashes, car crashes, or any other source of harm are
attempts at distraction.
Ah yes but ignoring reality is equally as fault.Example, according to
FBI data Blacks (forgive the description as I'm not up to date on the
current politically correct term) who comprise something like 13% of
the U.S. population commit more then 50% of homicides in the U.S.
Do you suppose that a study made in a site with a large percent of
Black residents might, just possible, be a tiny bit different then a
site with fewer, or even no, Blacks?
True, but even more compelling is that homicide victims are
well over 50% black. But hey no one seems to care about that
when restricting lawful citizens' rights over rifles is more
entertaining than addressing the illegal pistols used in
almost all crime.
And, some of those pistols were actually used in school shootings :-)
The anti-assault rifle agenda began before most people even knew that
they were and was promoted by fools who couldn't differentiate between
semi-automatic and full automatic. Those fools (Biden is one of them)
took it as a slap in the face when the assault weapon ban died and
they couldn't get it renewed. They couldn't tolerate the indignity of
having their pet program slapped down, even though the ban made no
sense.
They've been trying to recover that loss of dignity ever since and
their group thinking sycophants march along in lockstep.
Some people think and do what they're told to think and do by people
they have chosen to tell them what to think and do. The anti-assault
rifle loonies are examples of that.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
It goes unsaid that Sturmgewehr are automatic weapons, not
AR platform semis. Words ought to matter, but sadly, no.
Weren't the MP 43, MP 44, and StG 44 semi and full auto ?
Yes, AFAIK all Sturmgewehr have selective fire. Which is to
say choice of full auto is included, unlike civilian semi
models.

This is not a minor difference as the following several
generations of light auto rifles confirmed.
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Frank Krygowski
2024-12-26 16:22:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
True, but even more compelling is that homicide victims are well over
50% black. But hey no one seems to care about that when restricting
lawful citizens' rights over rifles is more entertaining than addressing
the illegal pistols used in almost all crime.
I don't recall _your_ proposals for addressing those illegal pistols.
Care to remind us?
--
- Frank Krygowski
Catrike Ryder
2024-12-26 09:31:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 19:13:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
I've mentioned numerous times that my family had guns in the house for
3 generations with no one being shoot. But reality apparently has no
bearing on what some people want to be true.
I think there's no way to logically converse with people who think one
or two anecdotes are more valid than reams of carefully gathered data.
So much for science!
400 million civilian firearms with just under 20,000 firearm homicides
per year, one per 20,000 firearms.
https://usafacts.org/data-projects/firearms-suicides
About 100 million bicycles
https://electronwheel.com/bike-facts-and-statistics/
for about 1300 deaths, one per 73,528 bicycles
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/bicycle-
deaths/
Which is a lower rate, only 27% of the likelihood of death per bicycle
as per firearm.
283,400,986 autos and light trucks in USA
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/how-many-cars-are-in-the-us.html
with 44,534 auto/ light truck deaths, one per 6363 vehicles.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm
That's over 3x (3.14) more dangerous per vehicle as per firearm.
For an anecdote, all four of my firearms have been oiled and cased,
undisturbed in any way, for well over a month. Not one of them has
jumped up and wrought mayhem. Not even a little bit.
Nice try, Andrew, but that's a thorough and elaborate attempt at
distraction.
The issue specifically being discussed is whether there's more risk of
being shot - or killed by gunshot - when there is a gun in the house,
versus no gun in the house.
The data is clear, and not even close. Even accounting for differences
in neighborhood climate (or comparing houses that are both in the same
sorts of neighborhoods) if you have a gun in the house, it's more likely
that people will be harmed or killed by that gun.
Of course there are houses with guns that have not had that experience.
Just as there are people who smoked and did not die of lung cancer.
Nobody is claiming 100% of guns cause death, nor that 100% of gun owner
households have gun deaths. The evidence is that the risk is over twice
as high in those households, not 100%.
Citing bicycle crashes, car crashes, or any other source of harm are
attempts at distraction.
Ah yes but ignoring reality is equally as fault.Example, according to
FBI data Blacks (forgive the description as I'm not up to date on the
current politically correct term) who comprise something like 13% of
the U.S. population commit more then 50% of homicides in the U.S.
Do you suppose that a study made in a site with a large percent of
Black residents might, just possible, be a tiny bit different then a
site with fewer, or even no, Blacks?
How many homes where people got shot also had drugs and/or druggies in
the home? That could very well have been the reason for the shooting.

--
C'est bon
Soloman
AMuzi
2024-12-26 14:01:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Catrike Ryder
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 19:13:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
I've mentioned numerous times that my family had guns in the house for
3 generations with no one being shoot. But reality apparently has no
bearing on what some people want to be true.
I think there's no way to logically converse with people who think one
or two anecdotes are more valid than reams of carefully gathered data.
So much for science!
400 million civilian firearms with just under 20,000 firearm homicides
per year, one per 20,000 firearms.
https://usafacts.org/data-projects/firearms-suicides
About 100 million bicycles
https://electronwheel.com/bike-facts-and-statistics/
for about 1300 deaths, one per 73,528 bicycles
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/bicycle-
deaths/
Which is a lower rate, only 27% of the likelihood of death per bicycle
as per firearm.
283,400,986 autos and light trucks in USA
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/how-many-cars-are-in-the-us.html
with 44,534 auto/ light truck deaths, one per 6363 vehicles.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm
That's over 3x (3.14) more dangerous per vehicle as per firearm.
For an anecdote, all four of my firearms have been oiled and cased,
undisturbed in any way, for well over a month. Not one of them has
jumped up and wrought mayhem. Not even a little bit.
Nice try, Andrew, but that's a thorough and elaborate attempt at
distraction.
The issue specifically being discussed is whether there's more risk of
being shot - or killed by gunshot - when there is a gun in the house,
versus no gun in the house.
The data is clear, and not even close. Even accounting for differences
in neighborhood climate (or comparing houses that are both in the same
sorts of neighborhoods) if you have a gun in the house, it's more likely
that people will be harmed or killed by that gun.
Of course there are houses with guns that have not had that experience.
Just as there are people who smoked and did not die of lung cancer.
Nobody is claiming 100% of guns cause death, nor that 100% of gun owner
households have gun deaths. The evidence is that the risk is over twice
as high in those households, not 100%.
Citing bicycle crashes, car crashes, or any other source of harm are
attempts at distraction.
Ah yes but ignoring reality is equally as fault.Example, according to
FBI data Blacks (forgive the description as I'm not up to date on the
current politically correct term) who comprise something like 13% of
the U.S. population commit more then 50% of homicides in the U.S.
Do you suppose that a study made in a site with a large percent of
Black residents might, just possible, be a tiny bit different then a
site with fewer, or even no, Blacks?
How many homes where people got shot also had drugs and/or druggies in
the home? That could very well have been the reason for the shooting.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
And for the defender being armed.
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Frank Krygowski
2024-12-26 16:25:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
Post by Catrike Ryder
How many homes where people got shot also had drugs and/or druggies in
the home? That could very well have been the reason for the shooting.
+1
And for the defender being armed.
So many "maybe, maybe" excuses. So much guessing and hypothesizing.

Fighting so hard against actual research, actual data.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Catrike Ryder
2024-12-26 17:00:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 11:25:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by AMuzi
Post by Catrike Ryder
How many homes where people got shot also had drugs and/or druggies in
the home? That could very well have been the reason for the shooting.
+1
And for the defender being armed.
So many "maybe, maybe" excuses. So much guessing and hypothesizing.
Fighting so hard against actual research, actual data.
Krygowski's "actual data" is also fallacious. Correlation does not
imply causation.

--
C'est bon
Soloman
Frank Krygowski
2024-12-26 16:21:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 19:13:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
I've mentioned numerous times that my family had guns in the house for
3 generations with no one being shoot. But reality apparently has no
bearing on what some people want to be true.
I think there's no way to logically converse with people who think one
or two anecdotes are more valid than reams of carefully gathered data.
So much for science!
400 million civilian firearms with just under 20,000 firearm homicides
per year, one per 20,000 firearms.
https://usafacts.org/data-projects/firearms-suicides
About 100 million bicycles
https://electronwheel.com/bike-facts-and-statistics/
for about 1300 deaths, one per 73,528 bicycles
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/bicycle-
deaths/
Which is a lower rate, only 27% of the likelihood of death per bicycle
as per firearm.
283,400,986 autos and light trucks in USA
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/how-many-cars-are-in-the-us.html
with 44,534 auto/ light truck deaths, one per 6363 vehicles.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm
That's over 3x (3.14) more dangerous per vehicle as per firearm.
For an anecdote, all four of my firearms have been oiled and cased,
undisturbed in any way, for well over a month. Not one of them has
jumped up and wrought mayhem. Not even a little bit.
Nice try, Andrew, but that's a thorough and elaborate attempt at
distraction.
The issue specifically being discussed is whether there's more risk of
being shot - or killed by gunshot - when there is a gun in the house,
versus no gun in the house.
The data is clear, and not even close. Even accounting for differences
in neighborhood climate (or comparing houses that are both in the same
sorts of neighborhoods) if you have a gun in the house, it's more likely
that people will be harmed or killed by that gun.
Of course there are houses with guns that have not had that experience.
Just as there are people who smoked and did not die of lung cancer.
Nobody is claiming 100% of guns cause death, nor that 100% of gun owner
households have gun deaths. The evidence is that the risk is over twice
as high in those households, not 100%.
Citing bicycle crashes, car crashes, or any other source of harm are
attempts at distraction.
Ah yes but ignoring reality is equally as fault.Example, according to
FBI data Blacks (forgive the description as I'm not up to date on the
current politically correct term) who comprise something like 13% of
the U.S. population commit more then 50% of homicides in the U.S.
Do you suppose that a study made in a site with a large percent of
Black residents might, just possible, be a tiny bit different then a
site with fewer, or even no, Blacks?
Again (and again!) at least one of the papers I cited compared
households that were as similar as possible, _except_ for guns.

And anyway, what do you think we should do about blacks? Pretend they're
a different species, so they don't count?
--
- Frank Krygowski
Catrike Ryder
2024-12-26 16:55:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 11:21:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 19:13:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
I've mentioned numerous times that my family had guns in the house for
3 generations with no one being shoot. But reality apparently has no
bearing on what some people want to be true.
I think there's no way to logically converse with people who think one
or two anecdotes are more valid than reams of carefully gathered data.
So much for science!
400 million civilian firearms with just under 20,000 firearm homicides
per year, one per 20,000 firearms.
https://usafacts.org/data-projects/firearms-suicides
About 100 million bicycles
https://electronwheel.com/bike-facts-and-statistics/
for about 1300 deaths, one per 73,528 bicycles
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/bicycle-
deaths/
Which is a lower rate, only 27% of the likelihood of death per bicycle
as per firearm.
283,400,986 autos and light trucks in USA
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/how-many-cars-are-in-the-us.html
with 44,534 auto/ light truck deaths, one per 6363 vehicles.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm
That's over 3x (3.14) more dangerous per vehicle as per firearm.
For an anecdote, all four of my firearms have been oiled and cased,
undisturbed in any way, for well over a month. Not one of them has
jumped up and wrought mayhem. Not even a little bit.
Nice try, Andrew, but that's a thorough and elaborate attempt at
distraction.
The issue specifically being discussed is whether there's more risk of
being shot - or killed by gunshot - when there is a gun in the house,
versus no gun in the house.
The data is clear, and not even close. Even accounting for differences
in neighborhood climate (or comparing houses that are both in the same
sorts of neighborhoods) if you have a gun in the house, it's more likely
that people will be harmed or killed by that gun.
Of course there are houses with guns that have not had that experience.
Just as there are people who smoked and did not die of lung cancer.
Nobody is claiming 100% of guns cause death, nor that 100% of gun owner
households have gun deaths. The evidence is that the risk is over twice
as high in those households, not 100%.
Citing bicycle crashes, car crashes, or any other source of harm are
attempts at distraction.
Ah yes but ignoring reality is equally as fault.Example, according to
FBI data Blacks (forgive the description as I'm not up to date on the
current politically correct term) who comprise something like 13% of
the U.S. population commit more then 50% of homicides in the U.S.
Do you suppose that a study made in a site with a large percent of
Black residents might, just possible, be a tiny bit different then a
site with fewer, or even no, Blacks?
Again (and again!) at least one of the papers I cited compared
households that were as similar as possible, _except_ for guns.
And anyway, what do you think we should do about blacks? Pretend they're
a different species, so they don't count?
A few people who had guns in their homes got shot. Many, many people
who have had guns in their homes did not get shot.

--
C'est bon
Soloman
Jeff Liebermann
2024-12-25 22:18:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 14:26:00 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
I've mentioned numerous times that my family had guns in the house for
3 generations with no one being shoot. But reality apparently has no
bearing on what some people want to be true.
I think there's no way to logically converse with people who think one
or two anecdotes are more valid than reams of carefully gathered data.
So much for science!
You probably don't want to converse with me. I've lost track of how
many times I've mentioned this web page below to demonstrate that a
mountain of evidence or a scholarly consensus somehow makes something
scientifically correct:
<https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Premature-Judgement.txt>
Most of those mentioned were recognized experts, had widespread
support for their opinions. However, they tirelessly defended their
incorrect positions against all evidence, some of which was likely
anecdotal, that they were wrong. I'm not asking you to equate reams
of data with sparse personal experiences. I'm suggesting that you not
dismiss anecdotal evidence out of hand. There have been far too many
times when the recognized authorities were totally wrong.

I like this one:

"The ordinary 'horseless carriage' is at present a luxury for the
wealthy; and although its price will probably fall in the future, it
will never, of course, come into as common use as the bicycle."
-- Literary Digest, 1899
--
Jeff Liebermann ***@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Catrike Ryder
2024-12-26 00:29:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 14:26:00 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
I've mentioned numerous times that my family had guns in the house for
3 generations with no one being shoot. But reality apparently has no
bearing on what some people want to be true.
Nor does logic..
Post by Frank Krygowski
I think there's no way to logically converse with people who think one
or two anecdotes are more valid than reams of carefully gathered data.
So much for science!
I think there's no way to logically converse with people who think
that because a few people who got shot had a gun in their home meant
that having a gun in your home makes you more likely to get shot.

--
C'est bon
Soloman
cyclintom
2024-12-26 17:00:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by John B.
I've mentioned numerous times that my family had guns in the house for
3 generations with no one being shoot. But reality apparently has no
bearing on what some people want to be true.
I think there's no way to logically converse with people who think one
or two anecdotes are more valid than reams of carefully gathered data.
So much for science!
--
- Frank Krygowski
Frank, there are reams and reams of data saying PRECISELY the opposite as your incredibly stupid claims. There are 120 guns for every American citizen and homicides by guns usually involve frugs which you as a Democrat heartily Aapprove by legalizing at every chance,

"Using these seven measures, links between homicide and drugs were found in 86.4% of the homicide cases. Figure 2 below shows the most common link was that there was a police record of drug use for the victim or suspect (66.7% of cases). The second most common link was for a police record of drug sales for victim or suspect (64.2%). Heavy drug use or affiliation with a known drug group was also present in more than 40% of cases. The homicides most directly linked to drugs include 23.5% involving drug related robberies and 11.1% involving drug transactions gone badly or battles for turf"

The second attempt to assassinate Trump wasn't even covered by the majority of the Slime Stream Media. Or given so short a shrift as to not be even noticed.
cyclintom
2024-12-25 18:05:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 19:47:05 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Catrike Ryder
Justice is a subjective evaluation.
Oh good grief. "Subjective evaluation": Our tricycle rider's latest
overused trope, intended to shut off discussion that makes him feel out
of his depth.
Apparently, the concepts of subjective and objective are over
Krygowski's low brow.
Post by Frank Krygowski
I think we're seeing an unfortunate side effect of democratic ideals.
When the people hear the phrase "All men are created equal" some of them
decided "My ideas are just as valid as anyone's, including the greatest
of geniuses who have devoted their entire life to studying the issue at
hand." Which is nonsense, of course.
Actually, the value of everyone's ideas are simply what other people
choose to put on them.
Post by Frank Krygowski
According to Abraham Lincoln, the founders did not mean that "all were
equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity."
Especially intellect. It's blindingly obvious that those who have
studied nothing but their own daydreams are very confident that their
daydreams are completely valid.
It's Dunning-Kruger at its best.
Intellect is simply the ability to reason. You either have it or you
don't. It's not something one can learn from a book or in a classroom.
Many people think they are intellectual because they can repeat what
somebody told them to say.
Firstly, that posting of Krygowski's was unusual for him since he appeared to be thinking and analyzing. He is usually reacting like a 5 year old that believes himself infallible. I agree that Justice is largely opinion - an 8 year old's parents are going to see true justice quite differently from Liebermann say.
Zen Cycle
2024-12-26 14:58:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 19:47:05 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Catrike Ryder
Justice is a subjective evaluation.
Oh good grief. "Subjective evaluation": Our tricycle rider's latest
overused trope, intended to shut off discussion that makes him feel out
of his depth.
Apparently, the concepts of subjective and objective are over
Krygowski's low brow.
Post by Frank Krygowski
I think we're seeing an unfortunate side effect of democratic ideals.
When the people hear the phrase "All men are created equal" some of them
decided "My ideas are just as valid as anyone's, including the greatest
of geniuses who have devoted their entire life to studying the issue at
hand." Which is nonsense, of course.
Actually, the value of everyone's ideas are simply what other people
choose to put on them.
Post by Frank Krygowski
According to Abraham Lincoln, the founders did not mean that "all were
equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity."
Especially intellect. It's blindingly obvious that those who have
studied nothing but their own daydreams are very confident that their
daydreams are completely valid.
It's Dunning-Kruger at its best.
Intellect is simply the ability to reason. You either have it or you
don't. It's not something one can learn from a book or in a classroom.
Many people think they are intellectual because they can repeat what
somebody told them to say.
We'll remember that the next time you cut-n-paste a psyche analysis.
--
Add xx to reply
cyclintom
2024-12-25 17:58:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Catrike Ryder
Justice is a subjective evaluation.
Oh good grief. "Subjective evaluation": Our tricycle rider's latest
overused trope, intended to shut off discussion that makes him feel out
of his depth.
I think we're seeing an unfortunate side effect of democratic ideals.
When the people hear the phrase "All men are created equal" some of them
decided "My ideas are just as valid as anyone's, including the greatest
of geniuses who have devoted their entire life to studying the issue at
hand." Which is nonsense, of course.
According to Abraham Lincoln, the founders did not mean that "all were
equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity."
Especially intellect. It's blindingly obvious that those who have
studied nothing but their own daydreams are very confident that their
daydreams are completely valid.
It's Dunning-Kruger at its best.
***@hile I am surprised that you appear to be actually thinking for yourself for a change, please do not use thye term Dunning-Kruger Effect because that is nothing more than a silly OPINION about things that are untestable.
AMuzi
2024-12-24 13:33:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Krygowski
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 09:46:18 +0700, John B.
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 19:02:49 -0600, AMuzi
Post by AMuzi
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-
kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-
row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there
weeping and
crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family
involved in
crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say,
hang him or
let him go.
<https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system
utilizing life
without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
In addition to the expense (in Tax Dollars!!!)...
Biden is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is officially
against the death penalty.
AFAIK there's no evidence it acts as a real deterrent.
Immoral (according to at least many experts in morality),
expensive, ineffective ...
What were the arguments in favor of it?
There are good arguments on both sides of every aspect.

But it need not be expensive:
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-execution-of-gary-gilmore
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
cyclintom
2024-12-25 17:52:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and
crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in
crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or
let him go.
<https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life
without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
In addition to the expense (in Tax Dollars!!!)...
Biden is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is officially against the
death penalty.
AFAIK there's no evidence it acts as a real deterrent.
Immoral (according to at least many experts in morality), expensive,
ineffective ...
What were the arguments in favor of it?
Frank, the deterence is there for anyone willing to look for it. A murderer executed may never again repeat that act. Was that something that somehow escaped your attention?

I am unaware of the Catholic Church being against the death penalty because the commandment translates - thoughy shalt not do murder and it was common for Jews to kill even people stealing things let alone commiting murder.
AMuzi
2024-12-25 19:10:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by cyclintom
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and
crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in
crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or
let him go.
<https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life
without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
In addition to the expense (in Tax Dollars!!!)...
Biden is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is officially against the
death penalty.
AFAIK there's no evidence it acts as a real deterrent.
Immoral (according to at least many experts in morality), expensive,
ineffective ...
What were the arguments in favor of it?
Frank, the deterence is there for anyone willing to look for it. A murderer executed may never again repeat that act. Was that something that somehow escaped your attention?
I am unaware of the Catholic Church being against the death penalty because the commandment translates - thoughy shalt not do murder and it was common for Jews to kill even people stealing things let alone commiting murder.
That sentence is utterly wrong on several levels and misses
the point completely.
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Frank Krygowski
2024-12-25 19:24:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I am unaware of the Catholic Church being against the death penalty ...
I'm not surprised.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Jeff Liebermann
2024-12-25 22:36:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
... it was common for Jews to kill even people stealing things let alone commiting murder.
Did you kill anyone when you were in Vietnam? Probably not directly.
You just maintained the machines that killed them. You're probably
thinking that this is somehow different. Yet, people died because of
what you were doing. You're probably thinking that you were just
following orders. That's a good excuse. However, you enlisted and
wanted to go to Vietnam. Has anyone called you a murderer? Probably
not except that you consider it acceptable to call my ancestors
murderers.

<https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP79T00826A001600010010-7.pdf>
"The cumulative killed and injured attributable to the bombing of
North Vietnam, estimated through September 1966, total about 29,000,
of which 18,000 are believed to be logistics workers and other
civilian personnel. Some 13,200 of the total casualties occurred in
1965, of which 6,000 were in the "civilian" category."

Now, please tell me again how biblical Jews were murderers.
--
Jeff Liebermann ***@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
AMuzi
2024-12-25 22:42:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jeff Liebermann
... it was common for Jews to kill even people stealing things let alone commiting murder.
Did you kill anyone when you were in Vietnam? Probably not directly.
You just maintained the machines that killed them. You're probably
thinking that this is somehow different. Yet, people died because of
what you were doing. You're probably thinking that you were just
following orders. That's a good excuse. However, you enlisted and
wanted to go to Vietnam. Has anyone called you a murderer? Probably
not except that you consider it acceptable to call my ancestors
murderers.
<https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP79T00826A001600010010-7.pdf>
"The cumulative killed and injured attributable to the bombing of
North Vietnam, estimated through September 1966, total about 29,000,
of which 18,000 are believed to be logistics workers and other
civilian personnel. Some 13,200 of the total casualties occurred in
1965, of which 6,000 were in the "civilian" category."
Now, please tell me again how biblical Jews were murderers.
It's a ridiculous notion besides being offensive.

Choose any group or nation, history is long and examples abound.
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Catrike Ryder
2024-12-25 23:19:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
Post by Jeff Liebermann
... it was common for Jews to kill even people stealing things let alone commiting murder.
Did you kill anyone when you were in Vietnam? Probably not directly.
You just maintained the machines that killed them. You're probably
thinking that this is somehow different. Yet, people died because of
what you were doing. You're probably thinking that you were just
following orders. That's a good excuse. However, you enlisted and
wanted to go to Vietnam. Has anyone called you a murderer? Probably
not except that you consider it acceptable to call my ancestors
murderers.
<https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP79T00826A001600010010-7.pdf>
"The cumulative killed and injured attributable to the bombing of
North Vietnam, estimated through September 1966, total about 29,000,
of which 18,000 are believed to be logistics workers and other
civilian personnel. Some 13,200 of the total casualties occurred in
1965, of which 6,000 were in the "civilian" category."
Now, please tell me again how biblical Jews were murderers.
It's a ridiculous notion besides being offensive.
Choose any group or nation, history is long and examples abound.
+1

--
C'est bon
Soloman
Jeff Liebermann
2024-12-25 23:23:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
Post by Jeff Liebermann
... it was common for Jews to kill even people stealing things let alone commiting murder.
Did you kill anyone when you were in Vietnam? Probably not directly.
You just maintained the machines that killed them. You're probably
thinking that this is somehow different. Yet, people died because of
what you were doing. You're probably thinking that you were just
following orders. That's a good excuse. However, you enlisted and
wanted to go to Vietnam. Has anyone called you a murderer? Probably
not except that you consider it acceptable to call my ancestors
murderers.
<https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP79T00826A001600010010-7.pdf>
"The cumulative killed and injured attributable to the bombing of
North Vietnam, estimated through September 1966, total about 29,000,
of which 18,000 are believed to be logistics workers and other
civilian personnel. Some 13,200 of the total casualties occurred in
1965, of which 6,000 were in the "civilian" category."
Now, please tell me again how biblical Jews were murderers.
It's a ridiculous notion besides being offensive.
Choose any group or nation, history is long and examples abound.
I don't understand. Do you find Tom's comments about biblical Jews
being murderers offensive, or are you referring to my comments that
under different circumstances, Tom might be considered a murderer?
--
Jeff Liebermann ***@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
AMuzi
2024-12-26 01:03:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Post by AMuzi
Post by Jeff Liebermann
... it was common for Jews to kill even people stealing things let alone commiting murder.
Did you kill anyone when you were in Vietnam? Probably not directly.
You just maintained the machines that killed them. You're probably
thinking that this is somehow different. Yet, people died because of
what you were doing. You're probably thinking that you were just
following orders. That's a good excuse. However, you enlisted and
wanted to go to Vietnam. Has anyone called you a murderer? Probably
not except that you consider it acceptable to call my ancestors
murderers.
<https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP79T00826A001600010010-7.pdf>
"The cumulative killed and injured attributable to the bombing of
North Vietnam, estimated through September 1966, total about 29,000,
of which 18,000 are believed to be logistics workers and other
civilian personnel. Some 13,200 of the total casualties occurred in
1965, of which 6,000 were in the "civilian" category."
Now, please tell me again how biblical Jews were murderers.
It's a ridiculous notion besides being offensive.
Choose any group or nation, history is long and examples abound.
I don't understand. Do you find Tom's comments about biblical Jews
being murderers offensive, or are you referring to my comments that
under different circumstances, Tom might be considered a murderer?
Mr Kunich's misanalysis of course.

"The [group or nation] are murderers" is true, but trite.
It's just the way humans are. And were.
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Jeff Liebermann
2024-12-25 22:43:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I am unaware of the Catholic Church being against the death penalty...
From the US Conference of Catholic Bishops:
<https://www.usccb.org>

"The Church's Anti-Death Penalty Position"
<https://www.usccb.org/resources/churchs-anti-death-penalty-position>

Now you are aware.
--
Jeff Liebermann ***@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
John B.
2024-12-26 00:34:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jeff Liebermann
I am unaware of the Catholic Church being against the death penalty...
<https://www.usccb.org>
"The Church's Anti-Death Penalty Position"
<https://www.usccb.org/resources/churchs-anti-death-penalty-position>
Now you are aware.
A somewhat different viewpoint then the hundreds of years that the
Church encouraged it.... Crusades, The inquisitions, etc. The famous
instruction, "Kill them all for the Lord knoweth them that are His”
was attributed to abbot Arnaud Amalric during the Siege of Béziers.
--
Cheers,

John B.
cyclintom
2024-12-25 17:46:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Post by John B.
Post by AMuzi
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
But, But, But... you have all those people back there weeping and
crying about how cruel the death sentence is.
Personally I believe that the individuals and family involved in
crimes like murder and rape should have a right to say, hang him or
let him go.
<https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs>
"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life
without parole sentences as an alternative punishment."
That is entirely bullshit and Liebermann knows it. Again he shows just how willing he is to lie to remain woke.
zen cycle
2024-12-24 13:07:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-
to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
Yeah, it's one of bidens "pals".....<eyeroll> seriously, andrew....
Shadow
2024-12-24 14:55:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/victims-shattered-kin-wants-biden-to-explain-to-our-faces-stunning-death-row-christmas-clemency/
"Life in prison without parole" is actually worse than the
death sentence.
Nasty guy, that "Uncle Joe". Should had let them get off easy.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
Google Fuchsia - 2021
Loading...