On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 21:39:34 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/20/2017 9:07 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/20/2017 9:25 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/20/2017 7:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 15:48:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 10/20/2017 2:15 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:36:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 10/19/2017 1:56 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 23:48:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
OK, I answered your question. You should now answer
mine. How many
rounds does a private citizen's gun really need to
fire in a minute? And
why?
I really enjoy the sarcasm. But I would comment that
RPM, rather than
being some archaic number used in ancient times is
the current
standard method of measuring the speed at which a
firearm fires.
You're refusing to answer.
I'm not asking about any "current standard method of
measuring speed,"
because that's not what I'm interested in. Instead I'm
asking how many
rounds does a private citizen's gun really need to
fire in one minute.
Since you pretend to have trouble understanding that,
let me illustrate:
I start a stop watch. You start to shoot. In one
minute, I say "STOP!"
How many shots, during that minute, are the minimum
necessary for
practical purposes? And exactly why do you choose that
number?
But again, I find your question to be ambiguous at best.
That's not a problem with the question. The real
problem is you
absolutely don't want to answer.
No, you are being ambiguous. Your first cry was, if I
remember
correctly, was them guns fire too fast and you
suggested some sort of
button that had to be pushed before pulling the
trigger. Now you are
into "the minimum necessary for practical purposes?"
Your memory is faulty. But in any case, why not answer
the question I'm
asking now? I've rephrased it several times hoping that
you would A)
understand, then B) really answer.
How many rounds does a private citizen's gun really need
to fire in one
minute? And why do you pick that number?
And I have answered. In considerable detail.
But as I have said you are being ambiguous. Deliberately
I believe, as
the answer depends on what your "private citizen really
needs to
fire". What is the definition of "private citizen" and
"really needs
to do" mean?
When I was shooting on Air Force pistol teams was I
shooting as a
"private citizen"? I was shooting in competitions labeled
as Maine
State Championship, Massachusetts State Championship,
specifically
aimed at all shooters.
What does "really need to fire" mean? House defense?
Hunting the
savage mountain lions? Getting rid of mice in the attic?
Participating
in Olympic shooting events?
You initially talked about rates of fire - "Ohooo those
guns shoot so
fast...". When that position became untenable you have
now changed to
"how many shots in a minute", I note that this change was
after I had
explained the difference between cyclic rate of fire and
sustained
rate of fire, so now you are falling back on what I
suspect is your
final argument.
Now you are asking my opinion, but realistically what
does my opinion,
or your opinion, have to do with the question? After all
I was a
competitive pistol shooter while you, from what you have
posted, have
very little, if any, real experience with firearms. Based of
familiarity with firearms obviously my opinion may carry
more weight
then yours.
After all, your arguments all fall in the "Ohooo those
things are so
dangerious" while I have tried to furnish actual data.
I suggest that, at least on this subject, that you are a
prejudiced
person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from
his own. A
bigot, in other words.
--
Cheers,
John B.
If I may, the correct answer is, "The whole nine yards."
And why?
It's a priori silly to ask, especially if it's the life of
your dependent or your own in the balance.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-n...r-dead-8896358
You surely would not suggest that her rate of fire was
excessive, would you? What if she had only a five shot
revolver? What if she had some slower regulated fire rate?
Remember it's three-on-one at four in the morning and 911 is
just twenty minutes away.
And because that's all there are in a can of .50, 9 yards =
roughly 350 rounds if I recall. Yes it's a ridiculous answer
but it's a ridiculous question.
In firearms training, one learns that the television and
'cowboy' ethos is fanciful and unlawful. For example,
there's no excuse for a 'warning shot' which is itself
criminal - an illegal discharge. 'Brandishing' is also a
crime most places.
If there's a direct and imminent threat to human life, stop
that threat, as the woman in link above did. I would not
fault her for emptying a magazine or even exchanging
magazines in the specific case.
If there's no threat to human life, then keep you hand off
that firearm altogether. I suspect that nearly all firearms
owners have never pointed a firearm at a human and virtually
all of us hope that day never comes to us.
I came across some information that sort of pertains to the
discussion:
CONCEALED CARRY PERMITS
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/05/22...ata-shows.html
The article states that Concealed Carry Permits in the U.S. topped 15
million in 2017
http://www.dailywire.com/news/8255/r...-aaron-bandler
The article states that:
The police committed 103 crimes per 100,000 officers, while the
general population committed 3,813 per 100,000 people, 37 times as
much as the police crime rate.
Among permit holders in Florida and Texas, the rate is only 2.4 per
100,000. That is just 1/7th of the rate for police officers. But
there's no need to focus on Texas and Florida - the data are similar
in other states."
It appears that legal gun owners are, contrary to what some seem to
believe, actually more law abiding then the "average" policeman.
--
Cheers,
John B.