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
  #611  
Old October 21st 17, 05:52 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,270
Default 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  
Old October 21st 17, 07:36 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default 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  
Old October 21st 17, 02:57 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default 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.

  #614  
Old October 21st 17, 02:59 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default Build it and they won't come

On Friday, October 20, 2017 at 12:51:06 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/20/2017 3:02 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 16:26:44 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

Frank Krygowski writes:

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?

Why don't you apply the hammer you're always harping on with bicycle
related deaths, and compare actual death tolls? Like your odds, as a
USAian, of being shot by police vs being shot by a total stranger in a
mass shooting. I think you'll find that, while shootings are a problem
in our country, the "newsworthy" incidents that have you so hyped up
are, in fact, a "negligible" problem.

The real gun problems a suicide, suicide, being killed by a "loved
one", and, for young men, being killed while involved in criminal
activity.


https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/mortality/lcwk9.htm
Contains 113 causes of death in the U.S.

Accidental firearm discharge is #100, Assault with a firearm is #107
and Firearm discharge cause unknown is #110.


And your point is... what?

Would you say that hand grenades should be totally legal, because they
don't appear on the list?


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.
  #615  
Old October 21st 17, 03:30 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default 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  
Old October 21st 17, 03:58 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default 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.
  #618  
Old October 21st 17, 04:52 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default 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  
Old October 21st 17, 05:08 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default 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
 




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 01:21 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.