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
  #501  
Old October 15th 17, 01:12 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default 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  
Old October 15th 17, 01:38 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default 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  
Old October 15th 17, 01:51 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Radey Shouman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,747
Default 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  
Old October 15th 17, 01:55 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default Build it and they won't come

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 07:01:18 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 8:46:22 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Wait - you mean the Army uses data???

Those guys who already know everything might be disappointed! :-)


It is apparent who is the one disappointed. The urge to grab guns is in the mind of all who would be slaves. To not give away your own freedom but to throw that of an entire nation away.

The NAZI regime started with Hitler claiming that a Jew was involved in a gun murder and no Jews should be allowed to own guns.


In 1919 the German government passed the Regulations on Weapons
Ownership, which declared that "all firearms, as well as all kinds of
firearms ammunition, are to be surrendered immediately." Under the
regulations, anyone found in possession of a firearm or ammunition was
subject to five years' imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 marks.

On August 7, 1920, rising fears whether or not Germany could have
rebellions prompted the government to enact a second gun-regulation
law called the Law on the Disarmament of the People. It put into
effect the provisions of the Versailles Treaty in regard to the limit
on military-type weapons.

In 1928, after a near decade of hyperinflation destroyed the
structural fabric of society, a rapidly expanding three-way political
divide between the conservatives, National Socialists, and Communists
prompted the rapidly declining conservative majority to enact the Law
on Firearms and Ammunition. This law relaxed gun restrictions and put
into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. Under this scheme,
Germans could possess firearms, but they were required to have permits
to do so.

Adolph Hitler was appointed as Chancellor of Germany on 30 January
1933.

The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law,
superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required
to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a
firearm. But under the new law:

Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or
ammunition. The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition
and transfer of rifles and shotguns, and the possession of ammunition.

That sounds just like a Krygowski law doesn't it - the first thing Germany did rolling into Poland was to seize all weapons from it's citizens. With a racial history like that you still haven't learned.



News Report 15 May 2003
US troops in Iraq gun crackdown

US troops will be given orders to arrest any Iraqis who carry or sell
guns, it was announced today...

--
Cheers,

John B.

  #506  
Old October 15th 17, 03:06 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default 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  
Old October 15th 17, 03:09 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joy Beeson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,638
Default 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  
Old October 15th 17, 03:10 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default 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  
Old October 15th 17, 03:17 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default 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  
Old October 15th 17, 03:31 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default 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

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 05:28 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.