Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/13/2017 12:15 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 1:59:37 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Big SNIP

The types of guns I'm thinking of are rapid fire (say, more than one round
per second) and/or high capacity (say, more than 20 rounds), plus
handguns. Yes, I understand that a very few handguns are used for
hunting, but that's a very small percentage of handgun use.

--
- Frank Krygowski

I can fire a bolt action Lee-Enfield rifle at 10 rounds per 10
seconds. The standard magazine capacity for that rifle is 10
rounds. If I wanted to I could get another magazine or two forit,
cut those magazines apart and then weld the three of them together
to form a 30 rounds capacity magazine. That would allow me to fire
30 rounds in 30 seconds. If I wanted more accurate aimed fire I
could support the fore-end of the rifle on a sand bag.

I'm not saying it's impossible to do what you claim. I'm saying it
shouldn't be legal. Why would you want to do that anyway? Is it just
in case a gaggle of U.S.ian gun nuts charges over the border to the
north?


Actually, at close range a shotgun with a wide spread of shiot can
be better than a rifle since the shotgun can hit more than one
person with each shot fired.

Watch a video of the Big Sandy Shoot and marvel at the number of
people with .30 caliber General Purpose Machine Guns, .50 caliber
heavy machine guns, 7.62mm Electric Gatling-type machine guns, 37mm
anti-tank cannons, etcetera. One guy even had a 76mm Hellcat tank
destroyer with a working 76mm main gun. All those weapons had the
primary purpose of killing people. A lot of people,dare I say most
people with rapid-fire high-rounds capacity shoot for fun.

Yes, a lot of people enjoy pretending to be soldiers. But I don't see
that society needs to put up with those juvenile pretend games if
doing so causes or aids thousands of murders.

The idea behind the Second Amendment was that most citizens would
potentially *be* soldiers, although not regular troops in a standing
army. Those who disagree with the premise should argue for repeal.
Once we start repealing the Bill of Rights I'll bet there's quite a bit
of it that will be found dispensable.

Btw, when hunting if you wound an animal, 5 seconds is a long time
and you'd better be really good at tracking because other wise that
animal will be long gone by the time you're ready to take that
second shot. If it's an large angry wounded animal that charges you
them your 5 seconds delay getting off a second shot could have you
either dead or severely injured.

As I said, if people want to discuss specific time limits for
subsequent rounds, I'm happy to do so. I'm sure Joerg's life has been
saved only by his ability to get a second round into a mountain lion
really quickly. But I bet fast firepower causes far more deaths than
it prevents.

BTW, I'm sure I can fire at least two shots per second with the gun in
my basement. I haven't tried, because all my practice has been for
accuracy, not speed. But a five second wait would never have
inconvenienced me.

So how do you propose to enforce the five second limit? It would seem
to outlaw essentially all repeating firearms, and almost all breech
loading single shot firearms. Most muzzle loaders would be ok, as long
as some clever ATF guy couldn't figure out how to reload in four seconds.

And let's remember that "the [American] right to bear arms" was
written when nobody conceived of a gun that could accurately fire
three rounds in a minute.

How many pages per minute could a press print, back when "the
[American] right to a free press" was written?

--