|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#501
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 1:20:47 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
As I have been trying to point since this thread began, the definition of what constitutes a legal firearm, is not a simple matter. ... From an admittedly cursory reading of the law it appears that the guns used in the Los Vegas shooting were legal weapons. Yes, it appears they were. The massacre happened in a state where almost anything to do with guns is legal. But regarding the "not a simple matter": Where do you live again? What's the gun murder rate? How often does your country have mass shootings? How do they define legal firearms? ISTM that this problem, like so many others, is claimed to be just too difficult for the U.S. Yet somehow, it's a problem that'sbeen largely solved in every other advanced country. - Frank Krygowski |
Ads |
#502
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 08:35:53 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/14/2017 12:20 AM, John B. wrote: On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 23:53:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/13/2017 11:27 PM, John B. wrote: On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 11:36:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/13/2017 10:16 AM, Radey Shouman wrote: Frank Krygowski writes: On 10/13/2017 12:15 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 1:59:37 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote: Yes, a lot of people enjoy pretending to be soldiers. But I don't see that society needs to put up with those juvenile pretend games if doing so causes or aids thousands of murders. The idea behind the Second Amendment was that most citizens would potentially *be* soldiers, although not regular troops in a standing army. Those who disagree with the premise should argue for repeal. Once we start repealing the Bill of Rights I'll bet there's quite a bit of it that will be found dispensable. The second amendment is a terrible piece of writing. My 10th grade English teacher would have had red marks all over it, and not just for style. Obviously, the very meaning was so unclear that serious, intelligent and even impartial readers have disagreed over interpretation for hundreds of years. Actually, given the conditions that existed in the Colonies, I suggest that the 2nd amendment made a great deal of sense at the time it was written and likely was perfectly understandable to the writers. There were was no standing army, defense was, excepting British troops, provided by the militia and each colony had laws requiring the male citizens to provide their own firelocks, bullets and powder. Connecticut's 1650 code contains one of the clearest expressions of the duty to own a gun: "That all persons that are above the age of sixteene yeares, except magistrates and church officers, shall beare arms...; and every male person with this jurisdiction, above the said age, shall have in continuall readines, a good muskitt or other gunn, fitt for service, and allowed by the clark of the band...." A less elaborate form of the law appeared in 1636, with reiterations in 1637, 1665, 1673, 1696, and 1741. v "Fines varied between two and ten shillings for lacking firearms or for failure to appear with firearms, compleat and well fixt upon the days of training...." And, the states were all jealous of their own rights and were worried about the federal government infringing on Their rights. All true. And despite the defective language in the 2nd Amendment, that is doubtlessly what the Founders were thinking of. They were certainly not endorsing an UNregulated collection of yahoos with closets of science-fiction (to them) rapid-fire, people killing arms. My point was that at the time the amendment was written it was not defective language and I'm sure that the writers and everyone that read the amendment understood perfectly what it meant. I don't call for a total ban on firearms. That would be one extreme position in this argument. But ISTM that many others are arguing for absolutely no restrictions on ownership and use of firearms. That is the other extreme position, and just as unreasonable. Yet many pretend it is a reasonable position, mostly based on a historically ignorant view of the second amendment. As I have been trying to point since this thread began, the definition of what constitutes a legal firearm, is not a simple matter. I've mentioned, for example, that the legal definition of "machine gun" is any weapon that fires more then once with a single pull of the trigger. So the bump stocks are a perfectly legal addition. The Federal government passed what was called "Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act" a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which stated in part: The definition of "semiautomatic assault weapon" included specific semi-automatic firearm models by name, and other semi-automatic firearms that possessed two or more from a set certain features: Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock Pistol grip Bayonet mount Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one Grenade launcher As for magazine capacity: The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1993 included a ban on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition. The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, commonly called the assault weapons ban (AWB), was enacted in September 1994. The ban, including its ban on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition, became defunct (expired) in September 2004 per a sunset provision. Attempts to renew the ban have failed on the federal level. In addition WDC and 8 other states currently have magazine bans. From an admittedly cursory reading of the law it appears that the guns used in the Los Vegas shooting were legal weapons. Thanks for bringing that up. I was puzzled when that odd phrase popped up years ago, apparently from someone trying to Anglicize 'sturmgewehr' which, being German, would be all too scary for the desired effect. But _assault_ weapon hit a nice audience, didn't it? Sounds so violent and all that. I suppose that it is an example of Modern American English. Like "Hey man! Isn't it hot here in Thailand? Ohooo It is so cool". Or calling anything painted black a "tactical" something or another. Hmmmm..... is that a new marketing scheme? Labeling a black bicycle as a "Tactical Bike" and charging 15% more then the red one, that every cyclist knows is faster :-? But I knew a guy who was killed by a baseball bat to the head. Make that an _assault_ baseball bat, as the prosecutor called the event a 'criminal assault' in court. I don't know of any case where a man was dispatched by a scary warlike folding stock, but you never know. And bayonet deaths seem rare, less common than machetes, even after 2004. Grenades were already illegal BTW. Pistol grip makes a firearm scary how? I just don't get that at all. I think that was probably just a method of defining an "Assault" weapon. And according to the Federal law the weapon had to have two of the features. A threaded barrel and pistol grip? And evil scary suppressors? WTF? A running meme around firearms owners is a hand cupped to one ear while saying, "pardon, what was that again?" otherwise known as 'the NRA salute'. I've always wondered about the furor about "Silencers", more properly called suppressors, as ownership is licensed by the Federal government and also some state laws. -- Cheers, John B. |
#503
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
Frank Krygowski writes:
On 10/13/2017 10:16 AM, Radey Shouman wrote: Frank Krygowski writes: [ ... ] 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. Mechanical? electric? plastic? steel? So many questions. Why not rely on existing technology? I propose a bit of technology several thousand years old: mittens. Simply pass a law requiring anyone in control of a firearm wear mittens at all times. I haven't watched those rapid fire videos, but would wager that not a one of the shooters wore mittens. I'll shake the hand of any man that can deliver aimed fire at 12 rounds per minute, wearing even the most well-fitted wooly mittens. It's well known that crimes of violence are more likely during hot weather, making mittens, previously not much worn in the summertime, a good solution. Anytime you see a nervous looking chap wearing baggy pants and mittens around the ice cream stand you'll know something is up. Of course, a few loopholes would have to be closed. I've heard of hunters in the great white north cutting a slit in a mitten to allow the trigger finger to protrude. In the future anyone possessing such a modified assault mitten would be subject to the same penalties as for possessing unlicensed a short barelled shotgun or hand grenade. And, of course, we still permit the sale of glittens, mitten like devices that can be converted to *fingerless* gloves in the blink of an eye. Having once bought a pair by accident I can safely say that we lose nothing by adding them to the list of NFA destructive devices. Mittens *might* not be a 100% solution. I imagine that the varmint hunters you admire might find that mittens do not fit their sport. Fortunately they almost alll use telescopic sites -- an opening for yet another bit of time-tested technology: coin operation. Just require a quarter to operate the scope, like those telescopes we've all used at scenic overlooks and beauty spots. Particularly dangerous weapons would require two or three quarters slid in together, as in one of those truck stop condom dispensers. For the Barrett .50, Susan B. Anthony dollars would be required, striking a blow simultaneously for feminism and for gun control. When the coin box becomes full, a shooter would be required to report to the local police station, where the money would be retrieved and added to a fund for children blinded by gunfire, or for the police coffee fund, whichever, in the uniquely competent judgement of the officer on duty, presented the direst need. -- |
#504
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
|
#506
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 17:12:56 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote: On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 1:20:47 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote: As I have been trying to point since this thread began, the definition of what constitutes a legal firearm, is not a simple matter. ... From an admittedly cursory reading of the law it appears that the guns used in the Los Vegas shooting were legal weapons. Yes, it appears they were. The massacre happened in a state where almost anything to do with guns is legal. Frank, the laws I quoted are U.S. government laws... applicable in every one of the 50 states. But regarding the "not a simple matter": Where do you live again? What's the gun murder rate? How often does your country have mass shootings? How do they define legal firearms? ISTM that this problem, like so many others, is claimed to be just too difficult for the U.S. Yet somehow, it's a problem that'sbeen largely solved in every other advanced country. - Frank Krygowski Sure it is. But is it gun control that caused it? You seem to be ignoring the fact that in a number of instances in the U.S. that States with minimal gun laws also have minimal murder rates. Yes, I know that you argue it is the pressures of urban living but that argument doesn't seem to hang together either. Example: New York City population of 8,550,861 murder rate of 3.0 rape rate of 14.0 Robbery of 198.2 crimes against property 1518 Los Angeles population of 3,962,726 murder rate of 7.1 rape rate of 55.7 Robbery of 225.9 crimes against property 2359 L.A. has less then half the population and more then double the crime. -- Cheers, John B. |
#507
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:46:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: Oops. Godwin says this thread's officially over. Move along, nothing more to see here. This thread ended before it started. -- Joy Beeson joy beeson at comcast dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/ |
#508
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On 10/14/2017 9:18 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/13/2017 10:39 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: So that's the solution? A pistol in every pocket? "Wild West" shootouts daily? I'd prefer the Canadian solution. It means handguns are very rarely carried by the bad guys; therefore the good guys don't have to carry handguns. [irrelevant wildlife stories snipped] There's a fundamental individual right to self defense, i.e., life itself, and a duty to one's dependents as well. There is a fundamental individual right to life. Guns cause Canadians to lose that right about 200 times per year. (That's gun homicides). In America, that number is closer to 9,000. Total gun deaths are much, much higher. The U.S. population is much larger, of course; but rates per 100,000 tell the same story. For the U.S., gun murders are 3.6/100,000 and deaths are 10.5/100,000. For Canada, gun murders are 0.38/100,000 and deaths are about 2/100,000 Britain is even better: 0.06/100,000 and 0.23/100,000 The U.S. is armed to the teeth for "safety." And it pays off by being over ten times worse than countries with more rational laws. [I had several links to fatal machete and knife attacks in Canada but they aren't all that necessary to the argument] I can't respect arguments pretending that if a law isn't absolutely perfect in correcting a problem, it's of no value. If absolute perfection is to be the standard, we should make it legal to steal from bike shops? Obviously, despite the existing laws, bike shop thefts happen. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#509
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On 10/13/2017 11:41 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 12:39:06 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/13/2017 12:20 PM, AMuzi wrote: 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.Â* 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.Â* 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. "well regulated militia." What does "well regulated" mean? Frank, the use of the word "regulate" dates from about 1620 - 30 and is from the Latin. "The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected." 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations." 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world." It took one Google search on the phrase "well regulated" to get 8.970,000 returns. As they say, "Whoosh!" (That's the sound of the point made in the discussion going over your head.) Of course I know what "well regulated" means. My point was that the founders expected to have a Well Regulated militia. What do we have instead? A massive gaggle of gun hobbyists, a bunch of fat guys who buy Soldier of Fortune magazine, a coward who's afraid to go to a nice music hall without a handgun, etc. Those people do NOT qualify as being part of a Well Regulated Militia. Instead, those sorts of people are unregulated. They are also generally untrained, undisciplined, and uneducated regarding militia duties. They know only what they see on TV crime shows, which is almost total bull****. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#510
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On 10/14/2017 8:51 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes: On 10/13/2017 10:16 AM, Radey Shouman wrote: Frank Krygowski writes: [ ... ] 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. Mechanical? electric? plastic? steel? So many questions. Analogy: The first typewriters had a common mechanical problem. If letters were hit too quickly in sequence, keys would jam. Several solutions arose, but among them was the QWERTY keyboard. It purposely introduced some mandatory clumsiness into the action to slow down the rate of character input. Like it or not, it worked. Something similar would be easy to design into guns. To fire, you'd have to push button A before each pull of trigger B. Single action guns do this (e.g. you must pull back the hammer before pulling the trigger) but something similar could be made as inconvenient as necessary to slow firing rate down to whatever was desired. And as I keep saying, we can talk about what's a reasonably slow firing rate. I'd suggest something slow enough to allow a roomful of people a chance at running out if a nut job came in and started shooting. Or if you prefer, slow enough that the very rare competent "good guy with a gun" could shoot back. -- - Frank Krygowski |
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 |