On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 20:53:53 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:
On Monday, 13 January 2020 23:30:29 UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 22:17:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 1/13/2020 8:10 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:31:49 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 1/12/2020 10:47 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 21:46:37 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
I'm not panicking. But unlike the NRA and its current (as opposed to
historic) members, I don't think it's a good thing to arm millions of
citizens with guns designed specifically for killing other people. Most
of the developed world agrees.
But Frank, every type of firearm invented in the history of the weapon
can be said to be designed for killing people. The modern bolt action
rifle is a descendent of the so called "Needle Rifle" developed in
1836, and adopted by the Prussian Army in 1841. The first "lever
action" rifle, an American classic, was developed by Benjamin Tyler
Henry. Patented in 1960 it was in the hand of Union Soldiers by mid
1862.
I think it's always been true that warfare has driven technology, and I
don't doubt that bolt action (for example) was developed with military
use in mind. But bolt action is far more practical for legitimate
civilian use than its predecessor systems. Hunters or target shooters
benefit greatly from not having to load through the muzzle.
The AR-15 style has characteristic features that have no reasonable use
in hunting or ordinary target competition. Who needs the designed-in
ability to accept a 30 (or even 100) round magazine? This style of gun
was _specifically_ designed for killing people. Its design was optimized
for that purpose. It's why it exists.
There are many guns optimized for more civilized uses - shotguns
optimized for hunting birds, long range hunting rifles for elk at 1000
yards, ordinary hunting rifles (like a Ruger 10/22 for example),
competition target rifles, ordinary 0.22s that are good at tin cans, etc.
Err... the lowly .22 was the weapon of choice of the Israeli Wrath of
God operatives to destroy the Black September terrorists.
You mentioned bows and arrows. But the bows sold in sporting goods
stores near me were never designed with homicide or armed combat in
mind. The AR-15 absolutely was.
Why do you say that?
Because it's absolutely true. Anyone can look up the history of the
gun's development and see what the design objectives were. They can look
at the early sales (or procurement) history to confirm things.
Do you imagine that modern self bows and arrows
are significantly different from the war bows and arrows of, oh say,
the battle of Crecy?
John, you're picking at nits in an unsuccessful attempt at distraction.
Before Crecy (and probably after) armies also used stones as weapons.
(Look up the historic military use of slings.) But we've never had
modern mass murders committed by people using slings or arrows. Those
weapons are irrelevant.
The AR-15 type was absolutely designed as a people killer, and it's been
used that way by criminals and nut cases with distressing regularity.
Its combat features are not needed for normal hunting, for shooting of
pest animals, for target shooting or for legitimate self defense.
But Frank, the latest "mass killing" at the wasn't a AR-15 type.... it
was a Glock 9 pistol as carried by many police officers. The shootings
at the Washington Navy Yard shootings in 2013 was with a Remington 870
shotgun.
I think that you are witch hunting, After all the AR-15 is a
semi-automatic rifle and the first semi-automatic rifle produced and
sold in the U.S. was the Remington Model 8 which went on sale in 1905.
So, if you are ranting about a semi-automatic rife why not include the
Remington?
What's next? The 20 round magazine? But I have already explained that
the Henry, from way back when, held 16 cartridges and as you haven't
ranted about that I can only assume that you don't oppose large
magazines.
And, if it is weapons designed specifically to kill people than you
need to include every military weapon made in the U.S. from the U.S.
Musket of 1795 to the present. Literally millions of weapons
manufactured solely to kill people.
It is probably also pertinent to mention that mass shootings from 1982
to 1919 have overwhelmingly been carried out with pistols . 142
weapons in 94 events while 55 rifles were used in 47 events. And, it
might be mentioned also that the greatest loss of life, have not been
accomplished, not with firearms but with common fertilizer and diesel
fuel. 169 deaths at one whack in the Oklahoma bombing nearly three
times the number killed in the greatest mass shooting in U.S. history.
Shouldn't we be screaming about fertilizer? Or diesel fuel?
And I think the sales of this style of gun are driven to a large extent
by Rambo fantasies - or fantasies about defending one's home from
government agents who will come to rip all your guns out of your hands.
I am not going to get into that discussion except to say that in the
late 1800's and early 1900's the activities of western shooters was
widely publicized in popular literature. Perhaps "Ramboism" in one
form or another is a normal facet of the human male.
I think you're correct on that point. And I think if human males are so
dedicated to that fantasy, they should enlist in a proper military or
police unit and learn some discipline. Most of those "Rambo" fantasy
boys are fat sluggards who couldn't qualify, but just want to play with
the toys and pretend. Let them stick to their silly video games.
--
cheers,
John B.
It's also quite interesting to watch a modern archer with a reproduction horse bow doing rapid fire shooting with it. At one time it was normal to have the third arrow in the air before the first arrow hit the ground. That was a hallmark of iirc Parthian horse archers. They also had this neat trick of firing their arrows over their horse's rump as the horse galloped away from the area of battle. That gave rise to the term "Parting shot".
Example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gumuNn2PAQo
Cheers
It is interesting that while the English developed military archery
and some of the eastern tribes, the Parthians that you mention for
example, did also, but the bulk of the nations did not although it was
proven in various battles, although I have read that there were
mercenary troops of crossbow men fighting for France at the battle of
Aquincourt. Of course a massed Calvary attack is difficult to defend
against but both Aquincourt and Cercy were fought on terrain that was
beneficial to the infantry.
--
cheers,
John B.