A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Build it and they won't come



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #531  
Old October 15th 17, 11:01 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default Build it and they won't come

On 10/15/2017 4:48 PM, James wrote:
On 16/10/17 05:56, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/15/2017 2:31 AM, John B. wrote:



What is the legal definition of a "people killer gun"?


It's not a legal term, John. It's a descriptive term I'm
using.

I'm including handguns and guns with firing rates over a
certain limit. Hunters and people controlling animals like
agricultural pests (anything from crows in corn to
groundhogs in gardens) don't need to use handguns. They
don't need to fire ten rounds in five seconds. Those
features (and some other ones as well) are useful only for
killing people.


An immobile injured or sick animal can be euthanized
effectively with a handgun. On the horse racing tracks they
use a captive bolt pistol for the job. I have heard of
hunters carrying a pistol to finish the job.

When you encounter a mob of feral pigs or goats, for
example, rapid fire can be very useful in eradication
programs. Perhaps not fully automatic, because aiming is not
really possible, but certainly semiauto can be very useful.

You can argue that a tradesman doesn't necessarily "need" a
particular tool, but should that prevent tradesmen from
having access to that tool if they find it useful? Should
we go back to hand saws and files because electric saws and
angle grinders are the cause of many trips to the ER?


register your assault screwdrivers:

https://www.abqjournal.com/81962/upd...-indicted.html

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


Ads
  #532  
Old October 16th 17, 12:50 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default Build it and they won't come

On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 7:41:56 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/14/2017 10:06 PM, John B. wrote:

New York City population of 8,550,861
murder rate of 3.0
rape rate of 14.0
Robbery of 198.2
crimes against property 1518

Los Angeles population of 3,962,726
murder rate of 7.1
rape rate of 55.7
Robbery of 225.9
crimes against property 2359

L.A. has less then half the population and more then double the crime.


I know that New York City has very strict gun laws. I don't know about
Los Angeles. But things like this might make some difference:
http://reason.com/archives/2017/08/0...and-their-guns


Apparently it didn't strike you for ONE second that areas of high crime rates will have ALL crimes high. It isn't GUN control that reduces the rates of crime in New York - it's a police department that enforces all laws and not just a few as they do in California.
  #533  
Old October 16th 17, 12:52 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default Build it and they won't come

On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 8:10:00 PM UTC-7, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:46:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Oops. Godwin says this thread's officially over. Move along, nothing
more to see here.


This thread ended before it started.


Joy, I'm with you. Thread officially over.
  #534  
Old October 16th 17, 01:05 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default Build it and they won't come

On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 1:36:34 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 12:09:18 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:

well that's a nice red herring. I'm sure Vice Lords & Latin
Kings will giggle while reading it.

Frank, could you posit a possible meaning for the phrase,
"shall not be infringed" ? What ever could they have meant
by that?


As someone mentioned earlier, there is a long history of state and local gun regulation, even in the old West. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/02/op...ol-237490.html . Even the Colonies had gun control, prohibiting blacks, Catholics and immigrants (or some combination of the three) from owning guns. The states and cities could and did regulate gun ownership until 2010 and the 5/4 opinion in McDonald v.. City of Chicago. The notion that gun ownership is somehow sacred and untouchable is nonsense. Even under the Second Amendment, reasonable regulation is permissible, although its political suicide in some states where guns have become religious articles.


Ahem - and most of those gun control laws were promptly overthrown.
  #535  
Old October 16th 17, 02:15 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Build it and they won't come

On 10/15/2017 5:48 PM, James wrote:
On 16/10/17 05:56, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/15/2017 2:31 AM, John B. wrote:



What is the legal definition of a "people killer gun"?


It's not a legal term, John. It's a descriptive term I'm using.

I'm including handguns and guns with firing rates over a certain
limit. Hunters and people controlling animals like agricultural pests
(anything from crows in corn to groundhogs in gardens) don't need to
use handguns. They don't need to fire ten rounds in five seconds.
Those features (and some other ones as well) are useful only for
killing people.


An immobile injured or sick animal can be euthanized effectively with a
handgun.Â* On the horse racing tracks they use a captive bolt pistol for
the job.Â* I have heard of hunters carrying a pistol to finish the job.

When you encounter a mob of feral pigs or goats, for example, rapid fire
can be very useful in eradication programs. Perhaps not fully automatic,
because aiming is not really possible, but certainly semiauto can be
very useful.

You can argue that a tradesman doesn't necessarily "need" a particular
tool, but should that prevent tradesmen from having access to that tool
if they find it useful?Â* Should we go back to hand saws and files
because electric saws and angle grinders are the cause of many trips to
the ER?


I'd say the legality of your hypothetical tool should depend on the
balance of benefits vs. detriments.

In the case of rapid fire guns and handguns, we have "tools" that may
make it slightly easier to kill, oh, maybe a hundred horses per year. At
the same time, in the U.S. anyway, they make it much easier to kill
thousands of people.

And somehow, somehow many other civilized countries get by without them
- or at least, with a relatively tiny number of them. They achieve the
benefits in other ways, and don't suffer nearly as many of the horrific
detriments as the U.S. does.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #536  
Old October 16th 17, 03:05 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Build it and they won't come

On 10/15/2017 4:36 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 12:09:18 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:

well that's a nice red herring. I'm sure Vice Lords & Latin
Kings will giggle while reading it.

Frank, could you posit a possible meaning for the phrase,
"shall not be infringed" ? What ever could they have meant
by that?


As someone mentioned earlier, there is a long history of state and local gun regulation, even in the old West. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/02/op...ol-237490.html . Even the Colonies had gun control, prohibiting blacks, Catholics and immigrants (or some combination of the three) from owning guns. The states and cities could and did regulate gun ownership until 2010 and the 5/4 opinion in McDonald v. City of Chicago. The notion that gun ownership is somehow sacred and untouchable is nonsense. Even under the Second Amendment, reasonable regulation is permissible, although its political suicide in some states where guns have become religious articles.


Andrew's a good guy, but he's giving lot of absolutist arguments that
make no sense to me.

"Shall not be infringed" is not absolute. Courts have long held that
reasonable requirements and limitations are constitutional.

There is the occasional screwdriver homicide. But nobody rationally
thinks screwdrivers need as much regulation as tommy guns.

There are occasional heroes who must act to reduce the harm caused by
gun whackos. But almost all handgun owners are much more likely to harm
someone in their family than a home invader, and rational gun control
won't be disarming police.

I agree with Jim Jeffries. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0
As he says at about 2:00, the _real_ pro-gun argument is "F**k off! I
_like_ guns!"

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #537  
Old October 16th 17, 10:24 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default Build it and they won't come

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 14:50:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/15/2017 2:14 AM, John B. wrote:
4On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:41:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/14/2017 10:06 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 17:12:56 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 1:20:47 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:

As I have been trying to point since this thread began, the definition
of what constitutes a legal firearm, is not a simple matter. ...

From an admittedly cursory reading of the law it appears that the guns
used in the Los Vegas shooting were legal weapons.

Yes, it appears they were. The massacre happened in a state where almost anything to do with guns is legal.

Frank, the laws I quoted are U.S. government laws... applicable in
every one of the 50 states.

But regarding the "not a simple matter": Where do you live again? What's the
gun murder rate? How often does your country have mass shootings? How do they
define legal firearms?

ISTM that this problem, like so many others, is claimed to be just too difficult
for the U.S. Yet somehow, it's a problem that'sbeen largely solved in every
other advanced country.

- Frank Krygowski

Sure it is. But is it gun control that caused it?

You seem to be ignoring the fact that in a number of instances in the
U.S. that States with minimal gun laws also have minimal murder rates.

I'm not ignoring that. I'll point out (again) that an island of gun
control, so to speak, can't get excellent results in a sea free of gun
restrictions.

Canada is next to a gun-crazy nation. That's a problem for them. They
manage it pretty well by strongly resisting guns crossing the border.
Your handgun may be legal in Vermont, but that cuts no ice when you try
to take it into Quebec.

Britain's gun violence data is even better. I'm betting that it's at
least partly due to the fact that they are, indeed, an island. No
American nut-jobs are driving their with pistols under their car seats.



Yes, I know that you argue it is the pressures of urban living but
that argument doesn't seem to hang together either. Example:

New York City population of 8,550,861
murder rate of 3.0
rape rate of 14.0
Robbery of 198.2
crimes against property 1518

Los Angeles population of 3,962,726
murder rate of 7.1
rape rate of 55.7
Robbery of 225.9
crimes against property 2359

L.A. has less then half the population and more then double the crime.

I know that New York City has very strict gun laws. I don't know about
Los Angeles. But things like this might make some difference:
http://reason.com/archives/2017/08/0...and-their-guns



But Frank, when I wrote about Vermont with their almost nonexistent
gun laws and extremely low murder rate you argued that it was because
the Vermonters all lived in rural bliss and that other places were
subjected to the pressures of living in urban environments.

But that doesn't seem to hold water as New York with its 8.5 million
population has far less crime then L.A. with less then half the
population.

By the way, Detroit, with its paltry population of 673,225 has:
murder rate of 43.8
rape rate of 78.7
robbery of 513.5
crimes against property 3529.9

A city 1/12th the size of N.Y with a murder rate 26 times higher?
Should we term it "the urban myth"?


Does Detroit do this?
http://reason.com/archives/2017/08/0...and-their-guns


Frank, ever heard of "zip guns"? The first I heard of them was back in
the 1950's when I read an article about New York kid gangs making
their own pistols. Do you think that kids in 2017 have suddenly gotten
dumber?

--
Cheers,

John B.

  #538  
Old October 16th 17, 10:49 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default Build it and they won't come

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 14:56:20 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/15/2017 2:31 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:49:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/14/2017 12:41 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 11:50:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/13/2017 2:04 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 22:59:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/12/2017 9:39 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:59:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/12/2017 4:46 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 00:49:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/11/2017 9:38 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 11:29:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/11/2017 9:42 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 4:54:17 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote:

It seems unlikely, at best, to believe that you didn't understand the
content of the original posts between Frank and I where he commented
that punching holes in a paper target with a gun and thinking you were
a big, bad, man was childish.

I then replied "like a 60 year old guy on a CF racing bike".

I can only assume that you are interjecting your off topic remarks
deliberately. So yes, goodbye.

Walking off in a snit again John? Really, get over yourself. You're beginning to sound like Frank who denies that where the strongest guns laws are we have the highest rates of gun crimes and where the least gun laws are in effect the murder rates are insignificant.

You mean like Canada vs. the U.S.? Or like Windsor vs. Detroit? Got
numbers?

Even a casual look shows little correlation between gun ownership in
the U.S. and homicides.

Gun ownership
http://tinyurl.com/ybnxnu8x
States with Extremely High Populations of Gun Owners (more than 50%)

1. Wyoming - 59.7% Homicide rate 2.7/100,000
2. Alaska - 57.8% 8.0
3. Montana - 57.7% 3.5
4. South Dakota - 56.6% 3.7
5. West Virginia - 55.4% 3.8
6. Mississippi - 55.3% 8.7
6. Idaho - 55.3% 1.9
6. Arkansas - 55.3% 6.1
9. Alabama - 51.7% 7.2
10. North Dakota - 50.7% 2.8

States with Below Median Populations of Gun Owners

40. Delaware - 25.5% Homicide rate 6.7/100,000
41. Florida - 24.5% 5.1
42. California - 21.3% 4.8
42. Maryland - 21.3% 8.6
44. Illinois - 20.2% 5.8
45. New York - 18% 3.1
46. Connecticut - 16.7% 3.3
47. Rhode Island - 12.8% 2.7
48. Massachusetts - 12.6% 1.9
49. New Jersey - 12.3% 4.1
50. Hawaii - 6.7% 1.3

Homicide rate from
http://tinyurl.com/gp9usuy

The State with the lowest homicide rate is New Hampshire (1.1/100,000)
and gun ownership of 30%.

I've been generally aware of that data for quite a while. Digging
deeper, here is what I think it shows:

States with lower population density, and especially with a greater
percentage of their population living in rural areas, tend to have more
people who own rifles and shotguns used for hunting and "varmint"
control. They also have much less of the social stress derived from
mixed cultures in dense cities.


Whether it is lower density or whatever I'm fairly sure that the
people are the major problem area.

Well, I'm sure that's true. As I understand it, places with no people
have very little crime!
But please note: I'm strongly in favor of hunting with guns. I'm
strongly in favor of most varmint control. I'm not talking about
reducing the number of guns in general.

Instead, I'm talking about reducing (or ideally, eliminating) the number
of guns specifically designed for killing other people. Those would
include guns designed or modified to shoot rapidly and to shoot many
rounds without reloading. And to further infuriate the gun nuts, I'd be
in favor of eventually reducing the number of handguns, since almost all
of those are intended as people killers.

The problem is, as I tried to point out, is that any configuration of
a "gun" can be used to kill people. Wild Bill Hickok kill at least 8
people with a .36 caliber cap and ball revolver, which is classified
as an antique and can be legally owned by anyone today.

From what I've just read, Hickok did kill several people, during a time
when lawlessness and drunken shootings were quite common. In most cases,
he killed them as a law officer acting in self defense, although several
of those seem to be questionable. But they were almost always one-on-one
situations. I don't see that having a gun that fired only once in five
seconds would have made a difference.

In any case, "Other things can kill so don't ban guns specially designed
for killing people" seems a specious argument. We do ban other things
specially designed for killing people, and no sane person thinks it's an
attack on their second amendment rights. (Thank God the National Hand
Grenade Association isn't as flush with money as the NRA.)

So: If we could correlate the number of non-hunting guns with gun
homicide rates, I suspect we'd see much different results. I think the
number of people-killing guns correlates pretty well with the rate of
gun deaths.

But I doubt that information is out there. The NRA has successfully
purchased laws that prohibit studying gun violence too closely.

I'm not so sure about that...

Really? See
http://www.latimes.com/business/hilt...nap-story.html

... as without very much effort I seem to find
a considerable amount of official data regarding shootings.

Find me the data I asked about: the correlation between the number of
guns designed specifically for killing people vs. homicide rates. 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.

Ah Frank, now you are down to one shot per second :-)

But more to the point, why should I - a law abiding citizen - be
deprived of my right to use a pistol to shoot deer with? Or woodchucks
for that matter? To my personal knowledge no one in my family has shot
a human for five generations.

Why should you be deprived of that "right"? For the same reason that an
avid admirer of explosives of all kinds is not allowed to possess hand
grenades. Heck, it's getting really difficult to find a place to buy C-4
plastic explosive material, just because of the oppressive and unjust
anti-explosive laws!

(Fun fact: I have a friend who bought some C-4 from a local guy as part
of a sting operation, which sent the seller to prison. After his
release, in a completely unrelated event, I got to meet the guy with the
prison time. He remarked at one time "These things are so strong you
couldn't even blow them up!" My friend said "Yep. He would know.")

Getting back to the point: Why should handguns, grenades and explosives
and rapid-fire people killers be highly controlled? It's a matter of
benefits vs. detriments. Regarding the handgun, the benefit is some dude
gets to brag "I took that buck with a handgun!" (IOW "Wow, I am highly
skilled and manly!") the detriment is thousands of handgun deaths per
year, far more per capita than any other advanced westernized country.
The detriment is far greater than the benefit.
It might also be noted that of the large "gun death" numbers quoted in
many articles about the dangers of gun ownership, that for the past 35
years (as of 2015) the majority of the "gun deaths" have been suicide.

Yes, depending on the article. Some data counts gun deaths, some data
counts homicides.

I suppose some might say "If someone wants to shoot themselves, that's
no problem." But society as a whole tends to disagree. Much work is done
to prevent suicide. Lots of money is spent on 911 operator training,
counseling centers, psychiatry and psychology etc. A lot of that is
employed after a failed suicide attempt, and the near-victims are often
glad they got a second chance to avoid the "permanent solution to a
temporary problem." But with guns, there usually is no second chance.


You appear to keep ignoring my point(s) that none of your suggestions,
i.,e. 5 seconds between rounds, big magazines,etc., are at all
practical.

What are the laws where you're living?


Here, firearms seem to be divided into two categories, I can't provide
the exact translation but in broad terms they would be "war weapons"
and "not war weapons". An M-16 or a .45 colt, 1911, pistol are war
weapons and a 9mm pistol is not. Military hand grenades are war
weapons while a ping-pong ball full of black powder is not.

The difference seems to be in the penalties imposed. War weapons seem
to get jail sentences while not-war may or may not.

What are the laws in Britain, Ireland, France, Germany, etc.?

http://www.theonion.com/article/no-w...ere-this-36131

Motor vehicles:
http://www.newsweek.com/2015-brought...0-years-427759
38,300 deaths and 4.4 million injured

Bicycles:
http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm
818 deaths and 45,000 injured

http://www.billboard.com/articles/ne...g-mandalay-bay
59 deaths and 527 injured

A: Logic problems. You're comparing annual deaths for motor vehicles and
bicycles to deaths from ONE nut case on one evening in Las Vegas.


Why ever not? After all you equate rate of fire with a dangerious
weapon.

B: As has been stated, motor vehicles, bicycles, stairs, beds and other
items causing death have valid uses. The deaths they cause are
regrettable side effects. People-killer guns are different. Those deaths
are their _intended_ effect.


What is the legal definition of a "people killer gun"?


It's not a legal term, John. It's a descriptive term I'm using.

Ah, you mean about those dangerious bicycles that kill over 700 people
a year? Ban em!

I'm including handguns and guns with firing rates over a certain limit.
Hunters and people controlling animals like agricultural pests (anything
from crows in corn to groundhogs in gardens) don't need to use handguns.
They don't need to fire ten rounds in five seconds. Those features (and
some other ones as well) are useful only for killing people.


Ah, and now you are branching out to hand guns... And rates of fire
over some specified rate?

The problem is Frank, that in this instance you simply do not know
what you are talking about.

Example: I can fire two shots from a double barrel shotgun in less
then one-half a second, perhaps as quickly as 1/4 of a second. In fact
some of them will fire both barrels simultaneously.

I assume that you will outlaw double barrel shotguns?

The real hotshot rapid fire boys habitually fire 5 rounds in 4 seconds
in the Olympics. Damn that is fast.

I assume that the U.S. will be withdrawing from the 25 metre rapid
fire events in the Olympics?

Another question arises. I read that there are approximately 265
million guns in the U.S. Will your new scheme
grandfather "the existing guns" so the owners can keep them?. Will
your scheme simply grab all those guns, confiscate them? Will you buy
them from the owners for a fair market value?

--
Cheers,

John B.

  #539  
Old October 16th 17, 10:59 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default Build it and they won't come

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 10:46:45 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 10/14/2017 7:38 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 08:35:53 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 10/14/2017 12:20 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 23:53:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/13/2017 11:27 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 11:36:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/13/2017 10:16 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
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:


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.

The second amendment is a terrible piece of writing. My 10th grade
English teacher would have had red marks all over it, and not just for
style. Obviously, the very meaning was so unclear that serious,
intelligent and even impartial readers have disagreed over
interpretation for hundreds of years.


Actually, given the conditions that existed in the Colonies, I suggest
that the 2nd amendment made a great deal of sense at the time it was
written and likely was perfectly understandable to the writers.

There were was no standing army, defense was, excepting British
troops, provided by the militia and each colony had laws requiring the
male citizens to provide their own firelocks, bullets and powder.

Connecticut's 1650 code contains one of the clearest expressions of
the duty to own a gun: "That all persons that are above the age of
sixteene yeares, except magistrates and church officers, shall beare
arms...; and every male person with this jurisdiction, above the said
age, shall have in continuall readines, a good muskitt or other gunn,
fitt for service, and allowed by the clark of the band...."

A less elaborate form of the law appeared in 1636, with reiterations
in 1637, 1665, 1673, 1696, and 1741. v

"Fines varied between two and ten shillings for lacking firearms or
for failure to appear with firearms, compleat and well fixt upon the
days of training...."

And, the states were all jealous of their own rights and were worried
about the federal government infringing on Their rights.

All true. And despite the defective language in the 2nd Amendment, that
is doubtlessly what the Founders were thinking of. They were certainly
not endorsing an UNregulated collection of yahoos with closets of
science-fiction (to them) rapid-fire, people killing arms.


My point was that at the time the amendment was written it was not
defective language and I'm sure that the writers and everyone that
read the amendment understood perfectly what it meant.

I don't call for a total ban on firearms. That would be one extreme
position in this argument.

But ISTM that many others are arguing for absolutely no restrictions on
ownership and use of firearms. That is the other extreme position, and
just as unreasonable. Yet many pretend it is a reasonable position,
mostly based on a historically ignorant view of the second amendment.

As I have been trying to point since this thread began, the definition
of what constitutes a legal firearm, is not a simple matter. I've
mentioned, for example, that the legal definition of "machine gun" is
any weapon that fires more then once with a single pull of the
trigger. So the bump stocks are a perfectly legal addition.

The Federal government passed what was called "Public Safety and
Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act" a subsection of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which stated in part:

The definition of "semiautomatic assault weapon" included specific
semi-automatic firearm models by name, and other semi-automatic
firearms that possessed two or more from a set certain features:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or
more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel
designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher

As for magazine capacity:
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1993 included a ban on magazines
capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition. The Public
Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, commonly called
the assault weapons ban (AWB), was enacted in September 1994. The ban,
including its ban on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds
of ammunition, became defunct (expired) in September 2004 per a sunset
provision. Attempts to renew the ban have failed on the federal level.

In addition WDC and 8 other states currently have magazine bans.

From an admittedly cursory reading of the law it appears that the guns
used in the Los Vegas shooting were legal weapons.


Thanks for bringing that up. I was puzzled when that odd
phrase popped up years ago, apparently from someone trying
to Anglicize 'sturmgewehr' which, being German, would be all
too scary for the desired effect. But _assault_ weapon hit a
nice audience, didn't it? Sounds so violent and all that.

I suppose that it is an example of Modern American English. Like "Hey
man! Isn't it hot here in Thailand? Ohooo It is so cool". Or calling
anything painted black a "tactical" something or another.

Hmmmm..... is that a new marketing scheme? Labeling a black bicycle as
a "Tactical Bike" and charging 15% more then the red one, that every
cyclist knows is faster :-?

But I knew a guy who was killed by a baseball bat to the
head. Make that an _assault_ baseball bat, as the prosecutor
called the event a 'criminal assault' in court.

I don't know of any case where a man was dispatched by a
scary warlike folding stock, but you never know. And bayonet
deaths seem rare, less common than machetes, even after
2004. Grenades were already illegal BTW. Pistol grip makes a
firearm scary how? I just don't get that at all.


I think that was probably just a method of defining an "Assault"
weapon. And according to the Federal law the weapon had to have two of
the features. A threaded barrel and pistol grip?


And evil scary suppressors? WTF? A running meme around
firearms owners is a hand cupped to one ear while saying,
"pardon, what was that again?" otherwise known as 'the NRA
salute'.


I've always wondered about the furor about "Silencers", more properly
called suppressors, as ownership is licensed by the Federal government
and also some state laws.
--
Cheers,

John B.


I can accept the 1934 (et seq) machine gun ban(s) but I've
never heard a good argument for classing suppressors in the
same lump as a real .50 cal Browning MA2.

WTF? I like belt feed as much as the next guy, but a
suppressor doesn't 'reach out and touch someone' in the same
way.


You democratically elected government has seen fit to license them.

I assume that this license keeps them out of the hands of criminals,
or something.

--
Cheers,

John B.

  #540  
Old October 16th 17, 11:01 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default Build it and they won't come

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 11:06:36 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 10/14/2017 9:41 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/14/2017 10:06 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 17:12:56 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 1:20:47 AM UTC-4, John
B. wrote:

As I have been trying to point since this thread began,
the definition
of what constitutes a legal firearm, is not a simple
matter. ...

From an admittedly cursory reading of the law it
appears that the guns
used in the Los Vegas shooting were legal weapons.

Yes, it appears they were. The massacre happened in a
state where almost anything to do with guns is legal.

Frank, the laws I quoted are U.S. government laws...
applicable in
every one of the 50 states.

But regarding the "not a simple matter": Where do you
live again? What's the
gun murder rate? How often does your country have mass
shootings? How do they
define legal firearms?

ISTM that this problem, like so many others, is claimed
to be just too difficult
for the U.S. Yet somehow, it's a problem that'sbeen
largely solved in every
other advanced country.

- Frank Krygowski

Sure it is. But is it gun control that caused it?

You seem to be ignoring the fact that in a number of
instances in the
U.S. that States with minimal gun laws also have minimal
murder rates.


I'm not ignoring that. I'll point out (again) that an island
of gun control, so to speak, can't get excellent results in
a sea free of gun restrictions.

Canada is next to a gun-crazy nation. That's a problem for
them. They manage it pretty well by strongly resisting guns
crossing the border. Your handgun may be legal in Vermont,
but that cuts no ice when you try to take it into Quebec.

Britain's gun violence data is even better. I'm betting that
it's at least partly due to the fact that they are, indeed,
an island. No American nut-jobs are driving their with
pistols under their car seats.



Yes, I know that you argue it is the pressures of urban
living but
that argument doesn't seem to hang together either. Example:

New York City population of 8,550,861
murder rate of 3.0
rape rate of 14.0
Robbery of 198.2
crimes against property 1518

Los Angeles population of 3,962,726
murder rate of 7.1
rape rate of 55.7
Robbery of 225.9
crimes against property 2359

L.A. has less then half the population and more then
double the crime.


I know that New York City has very strict gun laws. I don't
know about Los Angeles. But things like this might make some
difference:
http://reason.com/archives/2017/08/0...and-their-guns




I suspect that we do not know all the variables or even the
most significant ones..

You point to Canada, which is legally restrictive of
firearms, being smack up against us feisty USAians on a long
border.

But Mexico is also highly restrictive, legally. And yet the
trade flow of illegal (both merely undeclared and also
statutorily proscribed, as in full auto) firearms is
northbound, Eric Holder notwithstanding.

Yes, people do highlight Chicago and Illinois generally as
one outlier (draconian statutes, ordinances, administrative
impedimenta and flagrantly unconstitutional practice, all
to no effect) while others note New England enjoys high
firearm ownership rates with low criminal use of them.

I'm adult enough to say I don't know.

Although it is frowned on my the "anti-gun" crowd I suggest that the
old saw that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is probably
true.

Meanwhile, from first principles and a wealth of historical
examples I'm wan to accept disarmament. YMMV.

--
Cheers,

John B.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Can Women Build Big Muscles? Why Women Cant Build Big Muscles Easily [email protected] UK 0 February 16th 08 10:41 PM
Anyone looking to build a bc? Free hazard hub with a Stockton build! Evan Byrne Unicycling 5 September 14th 06 09:59 AM
Anyone looking to build a bc? Free hazard hub with a Stockton build! Evan Byrne Unicycling 0 August 25th 06 11:05 PM
Disc Wheel Build Build Suggestions osobailo Techniques 2 October 5th 04 01:55 PM
? - To build or not to build -- a bike - ? Andrew Short Techniques 16 August 4th 03 04:12 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.