Build it and they won't come

On 10/18/2017 10:58 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
My internet connection seems to have lost my reply. Pardon
me if this is a duplicate:

On 10/18/2017 8:18 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 10:45:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


I'm not counting (say) two quick blasts from a standard
shotgun, or 6
shots in 12 seconds from a double acting revolver as
being 30 shots in a
minute. Why? Because after those shots, you need to
manually reload. Few
people would ever fire even 12 shots in a minute with
those guns. I
think that's perfectly adequate for any realistic scenario.

Frank, that is exactly what I have been trying to convince
you of
since this discussion began. The so called "rate of fire"
is a
meaningless statistic as it is almost universally quoted
as the
maximum rate of fire that a firearm with an unlimited
source of
cartridges could fire.

John, I'm not talking about advertised rate of fire, or of
pretending a brief burst can be extrapolated to a full
minute. As I've explained, I'm asking about something quite
simple: How many rounds does a private citizen's gun really
need to fire in one minute? And why?

Again, I'm talking about private citizens, not police or
military. Why
does a private citizen need to shoot more than 10 or 12
times in one minute?

Which is why the now defunct " the Public Safety and
Recreational
Firearms Use Protection Act" did exactly that. Among
other things it
limited the magazine capacity of semi-automatic firearms thus
effectively limiting the effective rate of fire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa...lt_Weapons_Ban

Rather then worry about how many rounds per minute an
assault rifle
can fire you might concern yourself with the question why
did your due
elected law makers wrote a law to control assault rifles
that was
limited to only a ten year period.

That's easy. It was limited because the NRA, at the behest
of gun manufacturers, has bribed as many elected officials
as possible.

(OK, they've legally contributed to their re-election funds.
Same thing.)

Now that I've answered your question, you should answer
mine. How many rounds does a private citizen's gun really
need to fire in one minute? And why?

(For bonus points, you could summarize the gun laws in your
countries of residence and give their gun death and/or
murder rates.)



Tangentially, if what you say is true, then how about Step
Two? In some way or another the deceitful scheming firearms
manufacturers coerced or cajoled 200 million of us to lay
some cash on the table for a firearm. If there were bribes I
sure didn't get mine!

Viewed the other way around, manufacturers close up shop
when customers stop buying what they make.


--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 8:50:27 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/18/2017 9:28 PM, AMuzi wrote:


But the limitations and impediments of an FFL are not merely monetary-
it's a long, tedious process and involves all your personal history into
a Form 4 plus an ATF character evaluation/ background check. Even with
your FFL, every purchase is recorded, no other person can so much as
touch your firearm and it must be secured at all times at the listed
address. The FFL holder is subject to anytime ATF inspection which they
really do, randomly, at odd hours.

Then again, as North Dakotans say of their weather, "keeps out the
riffraff".Â* Licensed machine guns or light automatics used in any
criminal manner at all are virtually unknown. I linked earlier to the
numbers, something over 5,000 in Ohio alone.

How about that? Gun control works!

Frank, Eric Hoffer wrote that people of all ages can act juvenile and a large part of the problems in this country is the delinquent attitudes of people.

Apparently you refuse to understand that one nut does not a federal law require. You use a stupid "study" of "mass shootings" that are almost entirely gang warfare using guns that are already illegal to "prove" that we have to jump to your delinquent tune.

You underplay the fact that countries with the strictest possible gun laws have equally bad mass shootings or that mass killings have been performed with many things other than guns. Apparently the Boston Marathon has already been lost in the fog of time.

You couldn't care less that a large motivation for the 2nd Amendment was to protect the people of this country from the government itself. Or that the largest examples of mass murder in history have been governments of their own people.

You are a perfect example of Eric Hoffer's warnings - a juvenile delinquent that wants a nanny and not a government.

On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 8:58:42 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

John, I'm not talking about advertised rate of fire, or of pretending a
brief burst can be extrapolated to a full minute. As I've explained, I'm
asking about something quite simple: How many rounds does a private
citizen's gun really need to fire in one minute? And why?

Perhaps you can explain to use why that is any of your business?

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.

Here's why I suspect you don't want to answer: It's because no hunter
has a need to fire more than 10 rounds in one minute. And if some evil
person is invading your home, 10 shots within one minute should
certainly convince him to go elsewhere. If a person is target shooting,
10 shots in a minute is fast enough.

Yes, I know there are machine gun shoots, fast draw competitions and
other weird hobbies. I have friends who attend those. But those are
hardly necessary activities. They are play events for gun fetishists.

Until you come up with real answers and real reasons, I'll assume you're
simply refusing to admit your position is logically indefensible.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/19/2017 2:25 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 23:58:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


John, I'm not talking about advertised rate of fire, or of pretending a
brief burst can be extrapolated to a full minute. As I've explained, I'm
asking about something quite simple: How many rounds does a private
citizen's gun really need to fire in one minute? And why?
...
If you go out rabbet shooting some days you don't see any rabbits and
I can remember days dove shooting when I fired 5 shots through a 12
gauge shotgun as fast as I could pump it.

Ah! You're finally beginning to almost give a real answer to my
question, with some hint of a reason!

Now let me try again to get closer to an answer. When you shot those
five shotgun shells, how long did it take you? And how long was it
before you shot the sixth shot?

Was it more than a minute?

If, as I suspect, it was more than a minute before the sixth shot, then
you've made a case for five rounds in a minute being practically necessary.

--
- Frank Krygowski

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...

Everyone notice that Frank is all in a huff about me? Who would have guess that the elder delinquent would be angry for having his twisted logic put up in neon lights.

On 10/19/2017 9:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/18/2017 10:58 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
My internet connection seems to have lost my reply. Pardon
me if this is a duplicate:

On 10/18/2017 8:18 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 10:45:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


I'm not counting (say) two quick blasts from a standard
shotgun, or 6
shots in 12 seconds from a double acting revolver as
being 30 shots in a
minute. Why? Because after those shots, you need to
manually reload. Few
people would ever fire even 12 shots in a minute with
those guns. I
think that's perfectly adequate for any realistic scenario.

Frank, that is exactly what I have been trying to convince
you of
since this discussion began. The so called "rate of fire"
is a
meaningless statistic as it is almost universally quoted
as the
maximum rate of fire that a firearm with an unlimited
source of
cartridges could fire.

John, I'm not talking about advertised rate of fire, or of
pretending a brief burst can be extrapolated to a full
minute. As I've explained, I'm asking about something quite
simple: How many rounds does a private citizen's gun really
need to fire in one minute? And why?

Again, I'm talking about private citizens, not police or
military. Why
does a private citizen need to shoot more than 10 or 12
times in one minute?

Which is why the now defunct " the Public Safety and
Recreational
Firearms Use Protection Act"Â* did exactly that. Among
other things it
limited the magazine capacity of semi-automatic firearms thus
effectively limiting the effective rate of fire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa...lt_Weapons_Ban

Rather then worry about how many rounds per minute an
assault rifle
can fire you might concern yourself with the question why
did your due
elected law makers wrote a law to control assault rifles
that was
limited to only a ten year period.

That's easy. It was limited because the NRA, at the behest
of gun manufacturers, has bribed as many elected officials
as possible.

(OK, they've legally contributed to their re-election funds.
Same thing.)

Now that I've answered your question, you should answer
mine. How many rounds does a private citizen's gun really
need to fire in one minute? And why?

(For bonus points, you could summarize the gun laws in your
countries of residence and give their gun death and/or
murder rates.)



Tangentially, if what you say is true, then how about Step Two? In some
way or another the deceitful scheming firearms manufacturers coerced or
cajoled 200 million of us to lay some cash on the table for a firearm.
If there were bribes I sure didn't get mine!

You have to run for office to get yours.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/19/2017 12:45 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 8:50:27 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/18/2017 9:28 PM, AMuzi wrote:

Licensed machine guns or light automatics used in any
criminal manner at all are virtually unknown. I linked earlier to the
numbers, something over 5,000 in Ohio alone.

How about that? Gun control works!


Apparently you refuse to understand that one nut does not a federal law require.

You've forgotten that America has had many, many mass shootings in
recent decades. You've forgotten that many more than one gun nut has
been involved.

You use a stupid "study" of "mass shootings" that are almost entirely gang warfare using guns that are already illegal to "prove" that we have to jump to your delinquent tune.

Feel free to exempt gang warfare if you like, even though that's rather
odd. (Do you think it should be allowed??) You're still left things like
mass shootings of students in schools, people attending church, people
at office parties, people in night clubs, people attending concerts. I
suppose you must not remember those?

You underplay the fact that countries with the strictest possible gun laws have equally bad mass shootings or that mass killings have been performed with many things other than guns.

No advanced country has body counts from mass shootings or other mass
killings anywhere near ours. Some countries have had a few, but our
incidents eclipse theirs.

Apparently the Boston Marathon has already been lost in the fog of time.

What a weird argument! I think the weapon used at that Boston Marathon
should be illegal, and anyone using such a weapon should be severely
prosecuted and imprisoned for life. I believe all lawmakers agree, which
is why that type of bomb is illegal, and why America almost never sees
such bombings.

The big difference between you and me is that you think if the Boston
Marathon bombers had used machine guns (or equivalent huge magazine,
bump stock equipped guns), that their weapon should be perfectly legal,
and that their actions should be covered by a "right to bear arms."
That, to me, is flat-out crazy.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/19/2017 12:36 PM, 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.

Here's why I suspect you don't want to answer: It's because
no hunter has a need to fire more than 10 rounds in one
minute. And if some evil person is invading your home, 10
shots within one minute should certainly convince him to go
elsewhere. If a person is target shooting, 10 shots in a
minute is fast enough.

Yes, I know there are machine gun shoots, fast draw
competitions and other weird hobbies. I have friends who
attend those. But those are hardly necessary activities.
They are play events for gun fetishists.

Until you come up with real answers and real reasons, I'll
assume you're simply refusing to admit your position is
logically indefensible.


I don't see why any of this matters but can I tape two
sticks back to back? How many magazine changes are allowed?
Is this for accuracy or just total rounds downrange in one
minute? What's the prize?

Mr Slocumb notes, correctly, that cycle speed is an actual
spec with real-world meaning. A _rate_ of 600rpm doesn't
mean that any drum can hold 600 rounds for that platform or
that 600 rounds could ever cycle in one minute. Compare to a
rider riding at a _rate_ of 20mph, who may or may not travel
twenty miles on any given trip.

In answer to your larger question, a lot. There are
certainly times and situations where weight and unwieldiness
will limit any individual's decision, but it's a decision
neither mine nor yours.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 10/19/2017 12:43 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/19/2017 9:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/18/2017 10:58 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
My internet connection seems to have lost my reply. Pardon
me if this is a duplicate:

On 10/18/2017 8:18 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 10:45:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


I'm not counting (say) two quick blasts from a standard
shotgun, or 6
shots in 12 seconds from a double acting revolver as
being 30 shots in a
minute. Why? Because after those shots, you need to
manually reload. Few
people would ever fire even 12 shots in a minute with
those guns. I
think that's perfectly adequate for any realistic
scenario.

Frank, that is exactly what I have been trying to convince
you of
since this discussion began. The so called "rate of fire"
is a
meaningless statistic as it is almost universally quoted
as the
maximum rate of fire that a firearm with an unlimited
source of
cartridges could fire.

John, I'm not talking about advertised rate of fire, or of
pretending a brief burst can be extrapolated to a full
minute. As I've explained, I'm asking about something quite
simple: How many rounds does a private citizen's gun really
need to fire in one minute? And why?

Again, I'm talking about private citizens, not police or
military. Why
does a private citizen need to shoot more than 10 or 12
times in one minute?

Which is why the now defunct " the Public Safety and
Recreational
Firearms Use Protection Act"Â did exactly that. Among
other things it
limited the magazine capacity of semi-automatic firearms
thus
effectively limiting the effective rate of fire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa...lt_Weapons_Ban

Rather then worry about how many rounds per minute an
assault rifle
can fire you might concern yourself with the question why
did your due
elected law makers wrote a law to control assault rifles
that was
limited to only a ten year period.

That's easy. It was limited because the NRA, at the behest
of gun manufacturers, has bribed as many elected officials
as possible.

(OK, they've legally contributed to their re-election funds.
Same thing.)

Now that I've answered your question, you should answer
mine. How many rounds does a private citizen's gun really
need to fire in one minute? And why?

(For bonus points, you could summarize the gun laws in your
countries of residence and give their gun death and/or
murder rates.)



Tangentially, if what you say is true, then how about Step
Two? In some way or another the deceitful scheming
firearms manufacturers coerced or cajoled 200 million of
us to lay some cash on the table for a firearm. If there
were bribes I sure didn't get mine!

You have to run for office to get yours.



As I said to an old friend on his first election victory,
"Lay down with pigs, smell like s**t."

Which happened.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971