|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#451
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On 2017-10-12 06:57, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 11:52:35 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2017-10-11 10:46, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 9:47:14 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: snip But you use the word "be obliged". Be obligated by who? By the law. Just like if you build a structure that impedes your neighbor's access to his house you are obliged to accommodate him. A brilliant lawyer I know litigated that issue: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rex-b...b_3861490.html https://www.leagle.com/decision/19951583891p2d69211571 You need a law to start with, however. Joerg needs to go to his legislature. It's not a long ride to Sacramento -- and mostly on the American River Trail. We simply vote with our feet (the pedaling ones). Some communities do nothing. Others where the leaders are smart require any new road construction to have bicycling facilities. Folsom is an example. Therefore, I spend more of my money in such communities than in the ones without smart leaders. Many others think the same way and the results are mostly felt by restaurants and pubs. For me it's also hardware stores and such. There is a semi-major road near us that just did a really odd thing. They converted the road from a four lane barrier divided road to a two lane road with the CENTER LANES turned into a cross-hatch white line. This is a commonly used bicycle route and they did not add a bicycle lane. Cyclists ride in the center? That doesn't make much sense. Though I often have to do that for left turns out of parking lots on some busy four-lane roads during rush hour because my bikes and legs can't accelerate like a Porsche. So I enter the "suicide lane" and ride there until the two lanes in my direction clear up enough. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Ads |
#452
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On 10/13/2017 2:16 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 00:46:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: 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: Big SNIP 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. -- - Frank Krygowski I can fire a bolt action Lee-Enfield rifle at 10 rounds per 10 seconds. The standard magazine capacity for that rifle is 10 rounds. If I wanted to I could get another magazine or two forit, cut those magazines apart and then weld the three of them together to form a 30 rounds capacity magazine. That would allow me to fire 30 rounds in 30 seconds. If I wanted more accurate aimed fire I could support the fore-end of the rifle on a sand bag. I'm not saying it's impossible to do what you claim. I'm saying it shouldn't be legal. Why would you want to do that anyway? Is it just in case a gaggle of U.S.ian gun nuts charges over the border to the north? Actually, at close range a shotgun with a wide spread of shiot can be better than a rifle since the shotgun can hit more than one person with each shot fired. Watch a video of the Big Sandy Shoot and marvel at the number of people with .30 caliber General Purpose Machine Guns, .50 caliber heavy machine guns, 7.62mm Electric Gatling-type machine guns, 37mm anti-tank cannons, etcetera. One guy even had a 76mm Hellcat tank destroyer with a working 76mm main gun. All those weapons had the primary purpose of killing people. A lot of people,dare I say most people with rapid-fire high-rounds capacity shoot for fun. 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. Btw, when hunting if you wound an animal, 5 seconds is a long time and you'd better be really good at tracking because other wise that animal will be long gone by the time you're ready to take that second shot. If it's an large angry wounded animal that charges you them your 5 seconds delay getting off a second shot could have you either dead or severely injured. As I said, if people want to discuss specific time limits for subsequent rounds, I'm happy to do so. I'm sure Joerg's life has been saved only by his ability to get a second round into a mountain lion really quickly. But I bet fast firepower causes far more deaths than it prevents. BTW, I'm sure I can fire at least two shots per second with the gun in my basement. I haven't tried, because all my practice has been for accuracy, not speed. But a five second wait would never have inconvenienced me. And let's remember that "the [American] right to bear arms" was written when nobody conceived of a gun that could accurately fire three rounds in a minute. Actually you are wrong. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJMbxZ1k9NQ 3 rounds in 46 seconds or about 3.91 rounds per minute. I've seen that video before, and had it in mind when I wrote. It's why I included the word "accurately," which you missed. The guy's first two shots were in the right general direction, but I doubt they were "accurate." The third shot? There's no telling where it went. The stock wasn't even against his shoulder when he fired. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#453
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
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. So don't go "slippery slope" on me. It's an amendment, and it can be amended. Other aspects of the constitution have been amended and even repealed. The 18th amendment seemed like a good idea. When the effects became apparent, the 21st corrected the situation. We're now seeing the modern results of a terribly written 2nd amendment: a gun murder rate that eclipses any other modern industrialized country. We should amend that amendment, and put specific, rational limits on gun nuts. As I said, if people want to discuss specific time limits for subsequent rounds, I'm happy to do so. I'm sure Joerg's life has been saved only by his ability to get a second round into a mountain lion really quickly. But I bet fast firepower causes far more deaths than it prevents. BTW, I'm sure I can fire at least two shots per second with the gun in my basement. I haven't tried, because all my practice has been for accuracy, not speed. But a five second wait would never have inconvenienced me. So how do you propose to enforce the five second limit? It would seem to outlaw essentially all repeating firearms, and almost all breech loading single shot firearms. Most muzzle loaders would be ok, as long as some clever ATF guy couldn't figure out how to reload in four seconds. Again: If you don't like five seconds, we can discuss specific firing rates. But how to enforce? First, outlaw and buy back purpose-designed rapid-fire guns something like what Australia did. Second, I'd be shocked if it were impossible to design a mechanical or electronic damper system to limit fire rates. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#454
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
|
#455
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
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? What are the laws in Britain, Ireland, France, Germany, etc.? http://www.theonion.com/article/no-w...ere-this-36131 As for suicides, can you think of any liberty greater then the liberty to kill yourself? Well, if you want to argue about suicide rights and the termination of all anti-suicide programs, perhaps you should put it in a different thread. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#456
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
|
#457
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 8:36:12 AM UTC-7, 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. So don't go "slippery slope" on me. It's an amendment, and it can be amended. Other aspects of the constitution have been amended and even repealed. The 18th amendment seemed like a good idea. When the effects became apparent, the 21st corrected the situation. We're now seeing the modern results of a terribly written 2nd amendment: a gun murder rate that eclipses any other modern industrialized country. We should amend that amendment, and put specific, rational limits on gun nuts. As I said, if people want to discuss specific time limits for subsequent rounds, I'm happy to do so. I'm sure Joerg's life has been saved only by his ability to get a second round into a mountain lion really quickly. But I bet fast firepower causes far more deaths than it prevents. BTW, I'm sure I can fire at least two shot... Leave it to Frank to have an English teacher who could find fault with the writing of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. |
#458
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 8:36:12 AM UTC-7, 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. So don't go "slippery slope" on me. It's an amendment, and it can be amended. Other aspects of the constitution have been amended and even repealed. The 18th amendment seemed like a good idea. When the effects became apparent, the 21st corrected the situation. We're now seeing the modern results of a terribly written 2nd amendment: a gun murder rate that eclipses any other modern industrialized country. We should amend that amendment, and put specific, rational limits on gun nuts. As I said, if people want to discuss specific time limits for subsequent rounds, I'm happy to do so. I'm sure Joerg's life has been saved only by his ability to get a second round into a mountain lion really quickly. But I bet fast firepower causes far more deaths than it prevents. BTW, I'm sure I can fire at least two ... You still haven't told us why the states with the strongest gun control laws have the highest rates of murder and the states with NO laws have the lowest. But I'm sure you can sidestep that yet again. |
#459
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On 10/13/2017 10:06 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-10-11 19:23, wrote: On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 5:34:34 PM UTC-5, Joerg wrote: -snip communist exploitation of medical services- Again a statement without knowing much. You obviously have never see a severe case where it looks like a person might be at risk of losing a limb. You can not get the required anti-biotics and highly potyemnt medicine without a prescription. I knew exactly which ones I needed, teh doctor nodded and wrote it out. Took two minutes. Two minutes that cost me $70 co-pay. A lot less than most attorneys charge to review a contract (which IME is money well spent) -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#460
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On 10/13/2017 10:36 AM, 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. So don't go "slippery slope" on me. It's an amendment, and it can be amended. Other aspects of the constitution have been amended and even repealed. The 18th amendment seemed like a good idea. When the effects became apparent, the 21st corrected the situation. We're now seeing the modern results of a terribly written 2nd amendment: a gun murder rate that eclipses any other modern industrialized country. We should amend that amendment, and put specific, rational limits on gun nuts. As I said, if people want to discuss specific time limits for subsequent rounds, I'm happy to do so. I'm sure Joerg's life has been saved only by his ability to get a second round into a mountain lion really quickly. But I bet fast firepower causes far more deaths than it prevents. BTW, I'm sure I can fire at least two shots per second with the gun in my basement. I haven't tried, because all my practice has been for accuracy, not speed. But a five second wait would never have inconvenienced me. So how do you propose to enforce the five second limit? It would seem to outlaw essentially all repeating firearms, and almost all breech loading single shot firearms. Most muzzle loaders would be ok, as long as some clever ATF guy couldn't figure out how to reload in four seconds. Again: If you don't like five seconds, we can discuss specific firing rates. But how to enforce? First, outlaw and buy back purpose-designed rapid-fire guns something like what Australia did. Second, I'd be shocked if it were impossible to design a mechanical or electronic damper system to limit fire rates. Reading the legislative history of it, besides The Federalist (Hamilton, Madison & Jay) the intent, that the nation would do well to be armed, to a man, is clear. As I wrote recently, the track record of unarmed populations /in extremis/ is horrific, both from tyranny and invasion. That fact was well noted by the various Founders. Your confusion about this centers, I think, on the lack of specificity about sport shooting, hunting or applying lead poisoning to a criminal intruder. None of it is in the text because those are all irrelevant to the principle of a free nation made up of free men with essential individual rights. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
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 |