Build it and they won't come

On 10/17/2017 2:01 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 21:57:00 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 10:43:38 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 22:10:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 10/16/2017 8:13 PM, John B. wrote:
rOn Mon, 16 Oct 2017 07:11:23 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski wrote:


But regarding zip guns: You can't seriously pretend that those crude things
were as deadly as the handguns used by today's gangs. Zip guns typically
had short barrels, no rifling, and were limited to a single shot. They were
shoddily constructed compared to any marketable modern gun. Their accuracy
must have been terrible.

A single shot rifled musket was equally a pretty crude thing and the
war that caused the most fatalities of any war in U.S. history was
fought with them.

Nice try at diversion, John.

Let me state my point as a direct question: Do you, John, seriously
think a short barrel, non-rifled, single shot, crudely made zip gun is
as accurate or as deadly as the modern guns used by gangs today? A yes
or no answer will do.

Nope. But then at short ranges how accurate does it have to be. As for
"deadly" then yes it is. Deadly, in essence is a factor of bullet
weight and velocity... and you know it is, or at least I suspect that
as an engineer you have a fairly good grasp of physics.

Sorry, John, you brought up homemade zip guns as evidence that banning handguns
would do no good. But it certainly would do good. The homemade guns could not
fire anywhere near as many rounds. They could not have nearly as much accuracy
at any range beyond a couple feet. At 25 feet, they'd probably miss. That means
they are NOT nearly as deadly.

So forcing thugs to build or buy homemade guns would indeed mean guns would be
less deadly.

It's easy for you to say purposely restricting firing rate is a "wild
eyed argument." It doesn't seem to be so easy for you to explain why you
believe that's true.

No Frank, I've given you a number of examples why rate of fire is not
a major factor. Yet another example: Charles Whitman, University of
Texas, killed 16 people, and wounded 31 more, with semi-automatic
weapons - no bump stocks, guns fired once for every trigger pull.

That's nonsense. No unbiased person can pretend that Whitman wouldn't have
killed many more people if he were able to fire 100 rounds per minute.

And, I believe that I have mentioned that the guns used in the Los
Vegas shooting were all semi-automatic, and thus legal, firearms.

You're making my point. Those guns should not be legal.

What not legal? The fact that they are so called semi-automatic?

So no more semi-automatic guns in America? Like my grandfather's
Browning self loading Auto-5 shotgun. Goodness, a gun that was
designed 120 years ago? And now it has suddenly turned into a
dangerious weapon?

But Frank, I will repeat. Why this fetish about rate of fire? I would
guess that the single manually operated firearm with the highest rate
of any firearm that I have ever fired would be the double barrel
shotgun. I can certainly attain a firing rate of a tiny fraction of a
second, certainly faster then the so called bump stocks used in Los
Vegas.

Do we outlaw double barrel shotguns because of their high rate of
fire?

I keep telling you that rate of fire is an almost meaningless criteria
to measure firearms against.

So tell me. Do we outlaw the double barrel shotgun, the gun that I can
fire faster then any other gun I've ever fired?
(and yes, I qualified with the M-16 while in the A.F. so I am familiar
with a weapon that has a firing rate of about 900 RPM)


It's difficult to explain this without seeming to mock the question, but:
Assuming it takes a certain amount of time for police (or "good guys with guns")
to react to a shooting, then a whacko with a gun can fire many more rounds
before help arrives if he has a higher rate of fire. His gun is deadlier.
It can kill more people.

Lets face it, the time it takes a police team or "good guy gunner" to
react is sufficient to shoot a hell of a lot of people.

The Los Vegas reaction time was something over an hour, at least the
report I read said that the shooting started at 10:05 and "At 11:20
p.m., police breached Paddock's room with explosives." That is one
hour and 15 minutes. The U of T Tower shooting was about 2 hours. The
first shots were fired at about 11:20 and the shooter was killed at
about 13:24.

Typically, in the San Bernardino foreign jihadi
invasion/massacre (Jeb Bush: 'they come here out of love')
not one person in the hall returned fi

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-massacre.html

The two were finally dispatched in a street gunfight en
route to another planned venue.



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

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 11:57:34 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 5:05:02 PM UTC-7, wrote:
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.

No. There are plenty on the books still. I'm eating an early lunch after arguing a case in the Washington Court of Appeals (Division II visiting Kelso). The appeal involved one dope who shot another dope and is blaming it on my client -- a bar, for serving alcohol to dope number one. Anyway, one thing that colored the argument is the prohibition on guns in bars in Washington. Cities in Washington and Oregon (including Portland) have all sorts of gun restrictions -- and they should. Why should civilians be put at risk by idiots toting guns to bars, movie theaters, kids piano recitals, etc., etc. etc. Check your local ordinances. You'll probably see lots of gun regulations.

Jay - we don't allow guns in private hands in prisons either. Why would you suppose that is? Are you suggesting that extremely limited gun laws for extremely limited purposes is somehow forbidden by the 2nd Amendment?

Unless your client SAW the shooter with a gun there isn't anything to argue is there?

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 6:32:27 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/16/2017 9:04 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 07:16:24 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 6:01:51 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:

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.

Hand grenades don't kill people. People kill people.

Does your country allow hand grenades? Should ours?

- Frank Krygowski

Run around in small circles and wave your hands in the air all you
want but I've yet to hear of a gun, or a hand grenade, that suddenly
leap out of the corner and killed someone. Just as I've never heard of
a knife leaping out of a kitchen drawer and killing someone. And, if
you would face reality you would realize that.

But like many who seek simple answers for complex problems you leap on
the "Ban It" band wagon.

Where do you live, again? What are the gun laws where you live? And what
is the gun death rate per 100,000 population? What is the gun murder
rate per 100k? What is the total murder rate?

Frank - first you want legions of other racial groups into this nation and then you want to overthrow the Constitution because of the results of your first bad idea. Maybe you ought to read the Diary of Anne Frank and see what helplessness really is.

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 7:36:06 PM UTC-7, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 16:49:43 +0700, John B.
wrote:

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

No, no, the problem is that the riders don't know how to ride in
traffic, so we need to build totally-separate bike paths.

Oh good lord Joy, did you HAVE to start that in this thread?

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 9:57:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 10:43:38 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 22:10:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 10/16/2017 8:13 PM, John B. wrote:
rOn Mon, 16 Oct 2017 07:11:23 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski wrote:


But regarding zip guns: You can't seriously pretend that those crude things
were as deadly as the handguns used by today's gangs. Zip guns typically
had short barrels, no rifling, and were limited to a single shot. They were
shoddily constructed compared to any marketable modern gun. Their accuracy
must have been terrible.

A single shot rifled musket was equally a pretty crude thing and the
war that caused the most fatalities of any war in U.S. history was
fought with them.

Nice try at diversion, John.

Let me state my point as a direct question: Do you, John, seriously
think a short barrel, non-rifled, single shot, crudely made zip gun is
as accurate or as deadly as the modern guns used by gangs today? A yes
or no answer will do.

Nope. But then at short ranges how accurate does it have to be. As for
"deadly" then yes it is. Deadly, in essence is a factor of bullet
weight and velocity... and you know it is, or at least I suspect that
as an engineer you have a fairly good grasp of physics.

Sorry, John, you brought up homemade zip guns as evidence that banning handguns
would do no good. But it certainly would do good. The homemade guns could not
fire anywhere near as many rounds. They could not have nearly as much accuracy
at any range beyond a couple feet. At 25 feet, they'd probably miss. That means
they are NOT nearly as deadly.

So forcing thugs to build or buy homemade guns would indeed mean guns would be
less deadly.

It's easy for you to say purposely restricting firing rate is a "wild
eyed argument." It doesn't seem to be so easy for you to explain why you
believe that's true.

No Frank, I've given you a number of examples why rate of fire is not
a major factor. Yet another example: Charles Whitman, University of
Texas, killed 16 people, and wounded 31 more, with semi-automatic
weapons - no bump stocks, guns fired once for every trigger pull.

That's nonsense. No unbiased person can pretend that Whitman wouldn't have
killed many more people if he were able to fire 100 rounds per minute.

And, I believe that I have mentioned that the guns used in the Los
Vegas shooting were all semi-automatic, and thus legal, firearms.

You're making my point. Those guns should not be legal.

Let's try this question: What minimum firing rate do you think is
absolutely necessary in a privately owned firearm? And why do you choose
that number? Please give a definite number and a rational reason.

What has minimum or maximum firing rate got to do with anything, well
other then the number of dollars that can be burned up in a limited
time?

It's difficult to explain this without seeming to mock the question, but:
Assuming it takes a certain amount of time for police (or "good guys with guns")
to react to a shooting, then a whacko with a gun can fire many more rounds
before help arrives if he has a higher rate of fire. His gun is deadlier.
It can kill more people.

If rate of fire were of no importance, our military might be using muzzle
loading muskets.

Now, your reluctance to answer the questions is obvious, but I'll ask again:
What minimum firing rate do you think is absolutely necessary in a privately
owned firearm? And why do you choose that number? Please give a definite
number and a rational reason.

That is, if you can.

- Frank Krygowski





I simply cannot understand your fetish with rate of fire as I cannot
see how it is relevant to the question. After all, as I believe I've
mentioned, any number of manually operated firearms can be fired far
faster then any rate of fire limitation that you have mentioned so
far.

Frank is a mechanical engineer and thinks that a zip gun would miss at 25 feet. Really good use of mathematics Frank.

On 10/17/2017 3:01 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 21:57:00 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski wrote:
No unbiased person can pretend that Whitman wouldn't have
killed many more people if he were able to fire 100 rounds per minute.

And, I believe that I have mentioned that the guns used in the Los
Vegas shooting were all semi-automatic, and thus legal, firearms.

You're making my point. Those guns should not be legal.

What not legal? The fact that they are so called semi-automatic?

I'm proposing an upper limit on firing rate. We can discuss what that
limit should be. How about no more than 10 rounds per minute?

So no more semi-automatic guns in America?

Yes, if they can fire (say) more than 10 rounds per minute. And yes, I
know existing guns can fire faster. I don't think they need to.

I've asked you to state what firing rate is really necessary in a
privately owned firearm, and to explain why you think that rate is
necessary. Why don't you answer those questions?

But Frank, I will repeat. Why this fetish about rate of fire?

That's been explained. Do you _really_ need to read it again?

Do we outlaw double barrel shotguns because of their high rate of
fire?

We can discuss. Can a double barrel shotgun fire more than 10 rounds in
a minute? Does it need to? I suspect it doesn't, but I'll admit that
I've never hunted with a shotgun.

It's difficult to explain this without seeming to mock the question, but:
Assuming it takes a certain amount of time for police (or "good guys with guns")
to react to a shooting, then a whacko with a gun can fire many more rounds
before help arrives if he has a higher rate of fire. His gun is deadlier.
It can kill more people.

Lets face it, the time it takes a police team or "good guy gunner" to
react is sufficient to shoot a hell of a lot of people.

If it's not obvious to you that faster rate of fire enables shooting a
hell of a lot MORE people, there's something very wrong with you.

The Los Vegas reaction time was something over an hour, at least the
report I read said that the shooting started at 10:05 and "At 11:20
p.m., police breached Paddock's room with explosives." That is one
hour and 15 minutes. The U of T Tower shooting was about 2 hours. The
first shots were fired at about 11:20 and the shooter was killed at
about 13:24.

So in Texas, with a slow rate of fire, the shooter killed about 16 and
injured about 31 in two hours.

In Las Vegas, with high rates of fire, the shooter killed about 60 and
about injured about 500 in an hour and fifteen minutes.

When equipping soldiers for battle, the military provides weapons that
deliver high rates of fire.

But you still think that a high firing rate is unimportant. Yet it's
simultaneously important enough that you don't want to give it up.

Can I try again, please? What firing rate (say, in rounds per minute) do
you think is the minimum necessary for a privately owned firearm? And
why do you think that rate is necessary?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/17/2017 8:27 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/16/2017 9:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/16/2017 8:13 PM, John B. wrote:
rOn Mon, 16 Oct 2017 07:11:23 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 5:24:43 AM UTC-4, John B.
wrote:
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 14:50:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 10/15/2017 2:14 AM, John B. wrote:

By the way, Detroit, with its paltry population of
673,225 has:
murder rate of 43.8
rape rate of 78.7
robberyÂ* 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?

Well, in answer to your final question: Yes, I do think
that kids in 2017 are
not as smart as kids in the 1950s. I'm talking especially
about their skill
with mechanical projects. We should put that discussion
in a separate thread,
though.

It must be that "civilization" you guys always talk about.
Zip gun
making is alive and well over here. They even sell them
through
Facebook posts.
https://www.phuketgazette.net/phuket...acebook-groups



But regarding zip guns: You can't seriously pretend that
those crude things
were as deadly as the handguns used by today's gangs. Zip
guns typically
had short barrels, no rifling, and were limited to a
single shot. They were
shoddily constructed compared to any marketable modern
gun. Their accuracy
must have been terrible.

A single shot rifled musket was equally a pretty crude
thing and the
war that caused the most fatalities of any war in U.S.
history was
fought with them.

Nice try at diversion, John.

Let me state my point as a direct question: Do you, John,
seriously think a short barrel, non-rifled, single shot,
crudely made zip gun is as accurate or as deadly as the
modern guns used by gangs today? A yes or no answer will do.

We could perhaps discuss restricting gun possession to
the modern equivalent
of a zip gun. Allow gun nuts to have all the single shot,
non-rifled, short
barrel, duct-tape assembled handguns they want. If that's
deadly enough for
you, you might be able to convince me to agree.

- Frank Krygowski

Probably not. But we could restrict the discussion to
something that
made sense instead of some sort of wild eyed argument that
guns ought
to have a button that the shooter had to push before
he/she/it could
pull the trigger.

It's easy for you to say purposely restricting firing rate
is a "wild eyed argument." It doesn't seem to be so easy for
you to explain why you believe that's true.

Let's try this question: What minimum firing rate do you
think is absolutely necessary in a privately owned firearm?
And why do you choose that number? Please give a definite
number and a rational reason.


Frank, for a disarmed and occupied population, even the Liberator was
wildly successful:
http://candrsenal.com/pistol-fp-45-liberator-pistol/

One in the back of a sentry's head gets you his MP40 and a couple of
sticks.

While there's no 'duct tape', it's just barely above most zip guns I've
seen. (made by a steel-stamp manufacturer of headlight and turn signal
housings)

It's not the hardware, any more than in bicycle racing.

If it's not the hardware, then Steven Paddock should have been satisfied
to own only that style of gun. And people shouldn't be arguing in favor
of guns and gun modifications that allow high rates of fire.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 12:03:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/17/2017 3:01 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 21:57:00 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski wrote:
No unbiased person can pretend that Whitman wouldn't have
killed many more people if he were able to fire 100 rounds per minute.

And, I believe that I have mentioned that the guns used in the Los
Vegas shooting were all semi-automatic, and thus legal, firearms.

You're making my point. Those guns should not be legal.

What not legal? The fact that they are so called semi-automatic?

I'm proposing an upper limit on firing rate. We can discuss what that
limit should be. How about no more than 10 rounds per minute?

So no more semi-automatic guns in America?

Yes, if they can fire (say) more than 10 rounds per minute. And yes, I
know existing guns can fire faster. I don't think they need to.

I've asked you to state what firing rate is really necessary in a
privately owned firearm, and to explain why you think that rate is
necessary. Why don't you answer those questions?

But Frank, I will repeat. Why this fetish about rate of fire?

That's been explained. Do you _really_ need to read it again?

Do we outlaw double barrel shotguns because of their high rate of
fire?

We can discuss. Can a double barrel shotgun fire more than 10 rounds in
a minute? Does it need to? I suspect it doesn't, but I'll admit that
I've never hunted with a shotgun.

Gee... even more evidence that you really don't understand, isn't it.
The RPM firing rate isn't a measurement of how many bullets a gun will
fire, it is a measurement of how fast a gun will fire. Or if you will,
a measurement of how many bullets down range assuming an unlimited
supply in the magazine.

The M-16, for example has a rate of fire of about 950 rounds per
minute (cyclic) in other words that is the speed that the bolt
shuttles back and forth.

I can hear you now, muttering about how fast the gun fires...

BUT, the sustained rate of fire, in other words how many bullets you
can fire down range in some specified time, say a 30 minute fire
fight, is stated to be 12 - 15 RPM.

So my example of the double barrel shotgun is a valid RPM figure.


It's difficult to explain this without seeming to mock the question, but:
Assuming it takes a certain amount of time for police (or "good guys with guns")
to react to a shooting, then a whacko with a gun can fire many more rounds
before help arrives if he has a higher rate of fire. His gun is deadlier.
It can kill more people.

Lets face it, the time it takes a police team or "good guy gunner" to
react is sufficient to shoot a hell of a lot of people.

If it's not obvious to you that faster rate of fire enables shooting a
hell of a lot MORE people, there's something very wrong with you.

The Los Vegas reaction time was something over an hour, at least the
report I read said that the shooting started at 10:05 and "At 11:20
p.m., police breached Paddock's room with explosives." That is one
hour and 15 minutes. The U of T Tower shooting was about 2 hours. The
first shots were fired at about 11:20 and the shooter was killed at
about 13:24.

So in Texas, with a slow rate of fire, the shooter killed about 16 and
injured about 31 in two hours.

In Las Vegas, with high rates of fire, the shooter killed about 60 and
about injured about 500 in an hour and fifteen minutes.

When equipping soldiers for battle, the military provides weapons that
deliver high rates of fire.

But you still think that a high firing rate is unimportant. Yet it's
simultaneously important enough that you don't want to give it up.

Can I try again, please? What firing rate (say, in rounds per minute) do
you think is the minimum necessary for a privately owned firearm? And
why do you think that rate is necessary?


I though that you had verged on the answer in your post about the 10
shot shotgun but apparently you didn't.

The cyclic rate of fire, the number that is normally quoted in
discussions of rate of fire, is immaterial. The factor that you should
be interested in is the Sustained Rate of Fire, or how many bullets
down range in a period of time, which has little to do with RPM.

If, for example, you had a M134 Minigun which has a cyclic rate of
fire of up to 6,000 rounds a minute. Good Lord!

And that gun had a magazine holding 5 rounds.

What would be your sustained rate of fire? Sure the 5 rounds come out
of the muzzles in a 1/20th of a second but then you need to fumble
around and change the magazine, maybe drop the magazine a time or two.

And even more of a problem you would need to have 1,200 pre-loaded
magazines to fire 6,000 rounds.


And magazine capacity was limited by the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
which was signed into law as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994.

It barred the manufacture of 19 specific semi-automatic firearms,
classified as "assault weapons", as well as any semi-automatic rifle,
pistol, or shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine that has
two or more features considered characteristic of such weapons. The
list of such features included telescoping or folding stocks, pistol
grips, flash suppressors, grenade launchers, and bayonet lugs.

This law also banned possession of newly manufactured magazines
holding more than ten rounds of ammunition.

Unfortunately the ban expired on September 13, 2004 due to a sunset
provision. Since the expiration date, there is no federal ban on the
subject firearms or magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds
of ammunition.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 10/17/2017 11:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 12:03:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/17/2017 3:01 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 21:57:00 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski wrote:
No unbiased person can pretend that Whitman wouldn't have
killed many more people if he were able to fire 100 rounds per minute.

And, I believe that I have mentioned that the guns used in the Los
Vegas shooting were all semi-automatic, and thus legal, firearms.

You're making my point. Those guns should not be legal.

What not legal? The fact that they are so called semi-automatic?

I'm proposing an upper limit on firing rate. We can discuss what that
limit should be. How about no more than 10 rounds per minute?

So no more semi-automatic guns in America?

Yes, if they can fire (say) more than 10 rounds per minute. And yes, I
know existing guns can fire faster. I don't think they need to.

I've asked you to state what firing rate is really necessary in a
privately owned firearm, and to explain why you think that rate is
necessary. Why don't you answer those questions?

But Frank, I will repeat. Why this fetish about rate of fire?

That's been explained. Do you _really_ need to read it again?

Do we outlaw double barrel shotguns because of their high rate of
fire?

We can discuss. Can a double barrel shotgun fire more than 10 rounds in
a minute? Does it need to? I suspect it doesn't, but I'll admit that
I've never hunted with a shotgun.

Gee... even more evidence that you really don't understand, isn't it.
The RPM firing rate isn't a measurement of how many bullets a gun will
fire, it is a measurement of how fast a gun will fire. Or if you will,
a measurement of how many bullets down range assuming an unlimited
supply in the magazine.

The M-16, for example has a rate of fire of about 950 rounds per
minute (cyclic) in other words that is the speed that the bolt
shuttles back and forth.

I can hear you now, muttering about how fast the gun fires...

BUT, the sustained rate of fire, in other words how many bullets you
can fire down range in some specified time, say a 30 minute fire
fight, is stated to be 12 - 15 RPM.

So my example of the double barrel shotgun is a valid RPM figure.


It's difficult to explain this without seeming to mock the question, but:
Assuming it takes a certain amount of time for police (or "good guys with guns")
to react to a shooting, then a whacko with a gun can fire many more rounds
before help arrives if he has a higher rate of fire. His gun is deadlier.
It can kill more people.

Lets face it, the time it takes a police team or "good guy gunner" to
react is sufficient to shoot a hell of a lot of people.

If it's not obvious to you that faster rate of fire enables shooting a
hell of a lot MORE people, there's something very wrong with you.

The Los Vegas reaction time was something over an hour, at least the
report I read said that the shooting started at 10:05 and "At 11:20
p.m., police breached Paddock's room with explosives." That is one
hour and 15 minutes. The U of T Tower shooting was about 2 hours. The
first shots were fired at about 11:20 and the shooter was killed at
about 13:24.

So in Texas, with a slow rate of fire, the shooter killed about 16 and
injured about 31 in two hours.

In Las Vegas, with high rates of fire, the shooter killed about 60 and
about injured about 500 in an hour and fifteen minutes.

When equipping soldiers for battle, the military provides weapons that
deliver high rates of fire.

But you still think that a high firing rate is unimportant. Yet it's
simultaneously important enough that you don't want to give it up.

Can I try again, please? What firing rate (say, in rounds per minute) do
you think is the minimum necessary for a privately owned firearm? And
why do you think that rate is necessary?


I though that you had verged on the answer in your post about the 10
shot shotgun but apparently you didn't.

The cyclic rate of fire, the number that is normally quoted in
discussions of rate of fire, is immaterial. The factor that you should
be interested in is the Sustained Rate of Fire, or how many bullets
down range in a period of time, which has little to do with RPM.

If, for example, you had a M134 Minigun which has a cyclic rate of
fire of up to 6,000 rounds a minute. Good Lord!

And that gun had a magazine holding 5 rounds.

What would be your sustained rate of fire? Sure the 5 rounds come out
of the muzzles in a 1/20th of a second but then you need to fumble
around and change the magazine, maybe drop the magazine a time or two.

And even more of a problem you would need to have 1,200 pre-loaded
magazines to fire 6,000 rounds.


And magazine capacity was limited by the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
which was signed into law as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994.

It barred the manufacture of 19 specific semi-automatic firearms,
classified as "assault weapons", as well as any semi-automatic rifle,
pistol, or shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine that has
two or more features considered characteristic of such weapons. The
list of such features included telescoping or folding stocks, pistol
grips, flash suppressors, grenade launchers, and bayonet lugs.

This law also banned possession of newly manufactured magazines
holding more than ten rounds of ammunition.

Unfortunately the ban expired on September 13, 2004 due to a sunset
provision. Since the expiration date, there is no federal ban on the
subject firearms or magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds
of ammunition.

John, you're trying to avoid answering by deflecting into minutae.
You've added the word "cyclic," which I never used. You're attempting to
distinguish between bursts and sustained fire. You're talking about the
detailed history of the 1994 law, etc. All that is fantastically
interesting to a gun nut, but it's not what I'm asking about.

Let's talk instead about basics. Let's talk about how many rounds can be
shot in one minute. That's not a hard metric to understand.

With that in mind, let me try again: What's the minimum number of rounds
that you think a privately owned gun must be able to shoot in one
minute? And why, specifically, do you think that number is necessary?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 00:19:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/17/2017 11:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 12:03:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/17/2017 3:01 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 21:57:00 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski wrote:
No unbiased person can pretend that Whitman wouldn't have
killed many more people if he were able to fire 100 rounds per minute.

And, I believe that I have mentioned that the guns used in the Los
Vegas shooting were all semi-automatic, and thus legal, firearms.

You're making my point. Those guns should not be legal.

What not legal? The fact that they are so called semi-automatic?

I'm proposing an upper limit on firing rate. We can discuss what that
limit should be. How about no more than 10 rounds per minute?

So no more semi-automatic guns in America?

Yes, if they can fire (say) more than 10 rounds per minute. And yes, I
know existing guns can fire faster. I don't think they need to.

I've asked you to state what firing rate is really necessary in a
privately owned firearm, and to explain why you think that rate is
necessary. Why don't you answer those questions?

But Frank, I will repeat. Why this fetish about rate of fire?

That's been explained. Do you _really_ need to read it again?

Do we outlaw double barrel shotguns because of their high rate of
fire?

We can discuss. Can a double barrel shotgun fire more than 10 rounds in
a minute? Does it need to? I suspect it doesn't, but I'll admit that
I've never hunted with a shotgun.

Gee... even more evidence that you really don't understand, isn't it.
The RPM firing rate isn't a measurement of how many bullets a gun will
fire, it is a measurement of how fast a gun will fire. Or if you will,
a measurement of how many bullets down range assuming an unlimited
supply in the magazine.

The M-16, for example has a rate of fire of about 950 rounds per
minute (cyclic) in other words that is the speed that the bolt
shuttles back and forth.

I can hear you now, muttering about how fast the gun fires...

BUT, the sustained rate of fire, in other words how many bullets you
can fire down range in some specified time, say a 30 minute fire
fight, is stated to be 12 - 15 RPM.

So my example of the double barrel shotgun is a valid RPM figure.


It's difficult to explain this without seeming to mock the question, but:
Assuming it takes a certain amount of time for police (or "good guys with guns")
to react to a shooting, then a whacko with a gun can fire many more rounds
before help arrives if he has a higher rate of fire. His gun is deadlier.
It can kill more people.

Lets face it, the time it takes a police team or "good guy gunner" to
react is sufficient to shoot a hell of a lot of people.

If it's not obvious to you that faster rate of fire enables shooting a
hell of a lot MORE people, there's something very wrong with you.

The Los Vegas reaction time was something over an hour, at least the
report I read said that the shooting started at 10:05 and "At 11:20
p.m., police breached Paddock's room with explosives." That is one
hour and 15 minutes. The U of T Tower shooting was about 2 hours. The
first shots were fired at about 11:20 and the shooter was killed at
about 13:24.

So in Texas, with a slow rate of fire, the shooter killed about 16 and
injured about 31 in two hours.

In Las Vegas, with high rates of fire, the shooter killed about 60 and
about injured about 500 in an hour and fifteen minutes.

When equipping soldiers for battle, the military provides weapons that
deliver high rates of fire.

But you still think that a high firing rate is unimportant. Yet it's
simultaneously important enough that you don't want to give it up.

Can I try again, please? What firing rate (say, in rounds per minute) do
you think is the minimum necessary for a privately owned firearm? And
why do you think that rate is necessary?


I though that you had verged on the answer in your post about the 10
shot shotgun but apparently you didn't.

The cyclic rate of fire, the number that is normally quoted in
discussions of rate of fire, is immaterial. The factor that you should
be interested in is the Sustained Rate of Fire, or how many bullets
down range in a period of time, which has little to do with RPM.

If, for example, you had a M134 Minigun which has a cyclic rate of
fire of up to 6,000 rounds a minute. Good Lord!

And that gun had a magazine holding 5 rounds.

What would be your sustained rate of fire? Sure the 5 rounds come out
of the muzzles in a 1/20th of a second but then you need to fumble
around and change the magazine, maybe drop the magazine a time or two.

And even more of a problem you would need to have 1,200 pre-loaded
magazines to fire 6,000 rounds.


And magazine capacity was limited by the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
which was signed into law as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994.

It barred the manufacture of 19 specific semi-automatic firearms,
classified as "assault weapons", as well as any semi-automatic rifle,
pistol, or shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine that has
two or more features considered characteristic of such weapons. The
list of such features included telescoping or folding stocks, pistol
grips, flash suppressors, grenade launchers, and bayonet lugs.

This law also banned possession of newly manufactured magazines
holding more than ten rounds of ammunition.

Unfortunately the ban expired on September 13, 2004 due to a sunset
provision. Since the expiration date, there is no federal ban on the
subject firearms or magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds
of ammunition.

John, you're trying to avoid answering by deflecting into minutae.
You've added the word "cyclic," which I never used. You're attempting to
distinguish between bursts and sustained fire. You're talking about the
detailed history of the 1994 law, etc. All that is fantastically
interesting to a gun nut, but it's not what I'm asking about.

Let's talk instead about basics. Let's talk about how many rounds can be
shot in one minute. That's not a hard metric to understand.

With that in mind, let me try again: What's the minimum number of rounds
that you think a privately owned gun must be able to shoot in one
minute? And why, specifically, do you think that number is necessary?

You are going to be a lot more specific. What do you mean by shoots in
a minute? Do you mean how many shells/cartridges expended in a one
minute period? Or do you mean a rate of fire in rounds per minute?

Bulls eye target shooters, pistol fire matches requiring 5 rounds in
10 seconds, or 30 rounds per minute. A rifle shooter fires 10 shots in
60 seconds with a re-load. A Trap shooter in a doubles match shoots at
two targets that are thrown at the same time so maybe 2 rounds in 1 or
2 seconds. Say 30 - 60 rounds per minute.

I'm not 100% sure of the police qualification courses but I believe
that they include several strings of 3 or 4 shots in 3 seconds. Call
it 3 rounds so 60 RPM.

So generally speaking a target pistol, rifle or shotgun must be
capable of firing at 60 RPM to participate in standard target shooting
matches.

If an Olympic rapid fire shooter the gun must be capable of firing 5
rounds in 4 seconds, or 75 RPM.
--
Cheers,

John B.