|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#611
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
Snipped
On 10/20/2017 7:44 PM, John B. wrote: On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 15:48:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: Big Snip 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. Snipped Way upthread Frank made rather insulting and disparaging remarks about everyone non-military who fired a high capacity rifle. At that point I decided not to engage in the thread because it had already degenerated into yet another Troll thread. Cheers |
Ads |
#612
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
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. |
#613
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On Friday, October 20, 2017 at 12:49:01 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
How many rounds does a private citizen's gun really need to fire in one minute? And why do you pick that number? As many as he likes and it is none of your F-ing business. Have you got that Frank? Other people's Constitutional rights are theirs and not your business to stick your nose into. If you made a comment like that in front of me I'd slap you around. HA HA HA HA! We're talking about practical uses for guns, and you're surprised hunters come up? John, that's amazing. :-) What is practical for you may not be practical for someone else. How about someone deciding the car you drive is not practical? How about someone deciding that the food you want to eat isn't practical? Guns BY LAW come in the same category and if you don't like it try and change it. |
#615
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 6:59:44 AM UTC-7, wrote:
snip The largest cause of gun deaths by far is suicide. Do you know that at one time suicide was against the law? That was so that people like you could try and grab guns. It didn't work. Suicide was illegal so people like Frank could try and grab guns? O.K. Is your cat talking to you again? Quiet kitty, quiet! -- Jay Beattie. |
#616
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On Friday, October 20, 2017 at 1:03:22 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/20/2017 11:53 AM, wrote: On Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 11:00:07 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/19/2017 12:45 PM, wrote: 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?... What I think is odd that you believe that drug gangs shooting each other with illegal weapons often gained from the police themselves which are illegal for convicted felons to own should be counted as some sort of crime that could be preventable. I'm familiar with your argument, Tom. "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." But hand grenades are outlawed. I don't see lots of gang members throwing hand grenades. That law seems to work. Australia outlawed or very heavily restricted certain guns after one of their mass shootings. Those guns didn't totally disappear, but they became much more rare. It was partly a matter of practicality and economics. Since legal ones weren't available, thieves couldn't steal them as often. Since there were fewer stolen ones to pass around, the price of one on the black market surged. Many criminals just couldn't afford to buy one. And for your subtext, which seems to be "nothing can be done," there's this: https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-p...s-r-1819578287 Are Americans really that stupid? Tell you what Frank - move to Australia where the laws so obviously agree with your idfiology. Hand grenades aren't illegal because they're hand grenades but because they are a form of bomb. Fully automatic weapons aren't illegal in most states because they are fully automatic but because they would put weapons in the hands of people that could outgun the police forces. As I said, if you do not like the conditions of this country - the Constitutional rights then leave. Go to your much smarter Australia. |
#617
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
|
#618
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On 10/21/2017 12:52 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
Snipped On 10/20/2017 7:44 PM, John B. wrote: On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 15:48:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: Big Snip 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. Snipped Way upthread Frank made rather insulting and disparaging remarks about everyone non-military who fired a high capacity rifle. At that point I decided not to engage in the thread because it had already degenerated into yet another Troll thread. I doubt my disparaging remarks applied to you, Sir. For one thing, you live in a country with much more rational gun policies than the U.S. Have your gun laws really done you personal harm? It's pretty much a certainty that I know more real rapid-fire gun nuts than you do. I've heard their bragging, heard their paranoia, seen their "awesome" videos, heard their illogical attempts at arguments, etc. While most of these people have good qualities in other areas, regarding shooting things they are truly nuts. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#619
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On 10/20/2017 10:39 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/20/2017 9:07 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: 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? Looks to me like she fired about six shots in that minute. No, I don't think that's excessive. If she shot ten in that minute, it's still within what I proposed. And as I said, we should be able to have a reasonable discussion of what's really necessary. (Well, in a world free of the NRA, that is.) What if she had only a five shot revolver? What if? The thugs would still have run. I think it would have made no difference. Now, what if the thugs had far less access to handguns? What if their purchase were as tightly controlled as in Canada? What if they had to pay three times as much to even buy one on the black market? We probably would have no exciting video. Hell, there probably _are_ no Canadian videos like that. 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. Sorry, Andrew, I don't see that a slower firing rate would have made any difference at all. Her two fastest shots came when the thugs were already running away. And against that one video, you really should put up the videos of all the incidents that went the other way. Unfortunately, we don't have videos of all the family members killing other family members, or the thugs settling with bullets what they used to settle with fists. We don't have videos of the local baby killed by a bullet fired through the walls of a house, or the several local cases where shots through houses missed the occupants. 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. The question was about the minimum number of rounds a private citizen actually needs to be able to shoot within one minute. So yes, 350 rounds _is_ a ridiculous answer. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#620
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |