Build it and they won't come

On 10/20/2017 3:02 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 16:26:44 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/19/2017 12:45 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 8:50:27 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/18/2017 9:28 PM, AMuzi wrote:

Licensed machine guns or light automatics used in any
criminal manner at all are virtually unknown. I linked earlier to the
numbers, something over 5,000 in Ohio alone.

How about that? Gun control works!


Apparently you refuse to understand that one nut does not a federal
law require.

You've forgotten that America has had many, many mass shootings in
recent decades. You've forgotten that many more than one gun nut has
been involved.

You use a stupid "study" of "mass shootings" that are almost
entirely gang warfare using guns that are already illegal to "prove"
that we have to jump to your delinquent tune.

Feel free to exempt gang warfare if you like, even though that's
rather odd. (Do you think it should be allowed??) You're still left
things like mass shootings of students in schools, people attending
church, people at office parties, people in night clubs, people
attending concerts. I suppose you must not remember those?

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

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

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

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

And your point is... what?

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


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/20/2017 11:53 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 11:00:07 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/19/2017 12:45 PM, wrote:

You use a stupid "study" of "mass shootings" that are almost entirely gang warfare using guns that are already illegal to "prove" that we have to jump to your delinquent tune.

Feel free to exempt gang warfare if you like, even though that's rather
odd. (Do you think it should be allowed??) You're still left things like
mass shootings of students in schools, people attending church, people
at office parties, people in night clubs, people attending concerts. I
suppose you must not remember those?...

What I think is odd that you believe that drug gangs shooting each other with illegal weapons often gained from the police themselves which are illegal for convicted felons to own should be counted as some sort of crime that could be preventable.

I'm familiar with your argument, Tom. "If guns are outlawed, only
outlaws will have guns."

But hand grenades are outlawed. I don't see lots of gang members
throwing hand grenades. That law seems to work.

Australia outlawed or very heavily restricted certain guns after one of
their mass shootings. Those guns didn't totally disappear, but they
became much more rare. It was partly a matter of practicality and
economics. Since legal ones weren't available, thieves couldn't steal
them as often. Since there were fewer stolen ones to pass around, the
price of one on the black market surged. Many criminals just couldn't
afford to buy one.

And for your subtext, which seems to be "nothing can be done," there's
this:
https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-p...s-r-1819578287

Are Americans really that stupid?

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/19/2017 4:26 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/19/2017 12:45 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 8:50:27 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/18/2017 9:28 PM, AMuzi wrote:

Licensed machine guns or light automatics used in any
criminal manner at all are virtually unknown. I linked earlier to the
numbers, something over 5,000 in Ohio alone.

How about that? Gun control works!


Apparently you refuse to understand that one nut does not a federal
law require.

You've forgotten that America has had many, many mass shootings in
recent decades. You've forgotten that many more than one gun nut has
been involved.

You use a stupid "study" of "mass shootings" that are almost
entirely gang warfare using guns that are already illegal to "prove"
that we have to jump to your delinquent tune.

Feel free to exempt gang warfare if you like, even though that's
rather odd. (Do you think it should be allowed??) You're still left
things like mass shootings of students in schools, people attending
church, people at office parties, people in night clubs, people
attending concerts. I suppose you must not remember those?

Why don't you apply the hammer you're always harping on with bicycle
related deaths, and compare actual death tolls? Like your odds, as a
USAian, of being shot by police vs being shot by a total stranger in a
mass shooting.

OK, looks like data is soft; but what I'm finding indicates there
might be, very roughly, 1,000 police killings per
year. http://www.newsweek.com/how-many-ame...ch-year-480712

It's not only soft, the authorities responsible have intentionally made
it difficult to collect. A grain of salt is advised.

Most of those are almost certainly people who are confronted by cops
as a result of some (alleged?) illegal activity on their part. Sorry,
but that's not going to be me.

You might think so, but if you've been reading the news for the past few
years you should know that people have been killed by cops in the US for
no discernible reason, when they were not engaged in any questionable
behavior at all. Hardened felons know when to give up, assume the
position, and suck up a roadside beating. The habitually law abiding
sometimes fail to notice that they have somehow passed from being "good
guys" to being dangerous scumbag perps -- this mistake can be fatal.

But even so, there are at least 30 times as many non-police gun deaths
in the U.S.

This site https://twitter.com/GunDeaths lists 284 mass shootings so
far in 2017. Since they're usually defined as four or more
casualties, it's almost certain the total count of casualties is over
1000. Those are not deaths, of course; but unlike police actions,
those are usually people not involved in law breaking at the time.

The cases most noised about most in the media feature large numbers of
victims, killed for no apparent reason. These are scary and tragic, but
not a significant cause of death. They are a big drag on public morale,
but then so are killings by police.

The record mass murder in the US, mind, remains the Happy Land Social
Club arson, committed in haste with $1 worth of gasoline and rapid fire
matches.

I think you'll find that, while shootings are a problem
in our country, the "newsworthy" incidents that have you so hyped up
are, in fact, a "negligible" problem.

I think all the gun deaths are a problem. Yes, even those where cops
pulled the trigger. And I'll note that in countries not awash in guns,
cops rarely have to kill anyone.

The US problem with cops killing civilians has very little to do with
guns, it has to do with a failure to hold them accountable for actions
that would put you or I behind bars for many years.

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

Yes, those are problems too (although I would have listed suicide only
once). The last one overlaps with the cop problem you brought up. I'll
note again that all tend to be smaller problems in countries with
rational gun control.

I listed suicide twice deliberately, because of it's numerical
importance, because it's so often statistically abused (advocating gun
confiscation to prevent suicide would at least be honest), and because
the case of suicide shows up the pointlessness of dwelling on firing
rate, either instantaneous or averaged over a minute. With very few
exceptions suicides fail to get off that second shot.

--

On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 15:48:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/20/2017 2:15 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:36:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/19/2017 1:56 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 23:48:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

OK, I answered your question. You should now answer mine. How many
rounds does a private citizen's gun really need to fire in a minute? And
why?

I really enjoy the sarcasm. But I would comment that RPM, rather than
being some archaic number used in ancient times is the current
standard method of measuring the speed at which a firearm fires.

You're refusing to answer.

I'm not asking about any "current standard method of measuring speed,"
because that's not what I'm interested in. Instead I'm asking how many
rounds does a private citizen's gun really need to fire in one minute.

Since you pretend to have trouble understanding that, let me illustrate:
I start a stop watch. You start to shoot. In one minute, I say "STOP!"
How many shots, during that minute, are the minimum necessary for
practical purposes? And exactly why do you choose that number?

But again, I find your question to be ambiguous at best.

That's not a problem with the question. The real problem is you
absolutely don't want to answer.


No, you are being ambiguous. Your first cry was, if I remember
correctly, was them guns fire too fast and you suggested some sort of
button that had to be pushed before pulling the trigger. Now you are
into "the minimum necessary for practical purposes?"

Your memory is faulty. But in any case, why not answer the question I'm
asking now? I've rephrased it several times hoping that you would A)
understand, then B) really answer.

How many rounds does a private citizen's gun really need to fire in one
minute? And why do you pick that number?


And I have answered. In considerable detail.

But as I have said you are being ambiguous. Deliberately I believe, as
the answer depends on what your "private citizen really needs to
fire". What is the definition of "private citizen" and "really needs
to do" mean?

When I was shooting on Air Force pistol teams was I shooting as a
"private citizen"? I was shooting in competitions labeled as Maine
State Championship, Massachusetts State Championship, specifically
aimed at all shooters.

What does "really need to fire" mean? House defense? Hunting the
savage mountain lions? Getting rid of mice in the attic? Participating
in Olympic shooting events?

You initially talked about rates of fire - "Ohooo those guns shoot so
fast...". When that position became untenable you have now changed to
"how many shots in a minute", I note that this change was after I had
explained the difference between cyclic rate of fire and sustained
rate of fire, so now you are falling back on what I suspect is your
final argument.

Now you are asking my opinion, but realistically what does my opinion,
or your opinion, have to do with the question? After all I was a
competitive pistol shooter while you, from what you have posted, have
very little, if any, real experience with firearms. Based of
familiarity with firearms obviously my opinion may carry more weight
then yours.

After all, your arguments all fall in the "Ohooo those things are so
dangerious" while I have tried to furnish actual data.

I suggest that, at least on this subject, that you are a prejudiced
person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own. A
bigot, in other words.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 10/20/2017 7:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 15:48:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/20/2017 2:15 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:36:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/19/2017 1:56 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 23:48:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

OK, I answered your question. You should now answer mine. How many
rounds does a private citizen's gun really need to fire in a minute? And
why?

I really enjoy the sarcasm. But I would comment that RPM, rather than
being some archaic number used in ancient times is the current
standard method of measuring the speed at which a firearm fires.

You're refusing to answer.

I'm not asking about any "current standard method of measuring speed,"
because that's not what I'm interested in. Instead I'm asking how many
rounds does a private citizen's gun really need to fire in one minute.

Since you pretend to have trouble understanding that, let me illustrate:
I start a stop watch. You start to shoot. In one minute, I say "STOP!"
How many shots, during that minute, are the minimum necessary for
practical purposes? And exactly why do you choose that number?

But again, I find your question to be ambiguous at best.

That's not a problem with the question. The real problem is you
absolutely don't want to answer.


No, you are being ambiguous. Your first cry was, if I remember
correctly, was them guns fire too fast and you suggested some sort of
button that had to be pushed before pulling the trigger. Now you are
into "the minimum necessary for practical purposes?"

Your memory is faulty. But in any case, why not answer the question I'm
asking now? I've rephrased it several times hoping that you would A)
understand, then B) really answer.

How many rounds does a private citizen's gun really need to fire in one
minute? And why do you pick that number?


And I have answered. In considerable detail.

But as I have said you are being ambiguous. Deliberately I believe, as
the answer depends on what your "private citizen really needs to
fire". What is the definition of "private citizen" and "really needs
to do" mean?

When I was shooting on Air Force pistol teams was I shooting as a
"private citizen"? I was shooting in competitions labeled as Maine
State Championship, Massachusetts State Championship, specifically
aimed at all shooters.

What does "really need to fire" mean? House defense? Hunting the
savage mountain lions? Getting rid of mice in the attic? Participating
in Olympic shooting events?

You initially talked about rates of fire - "Ohooo those guns shoot so
fast...". When that position became untenable you have now changed to
"how many shots in a minute", I note that this change was after I had
explained the difference between cyclic rate of fire and sustained
rate of fire, so now you are falling back on what I suspect is your
final argument.

Now you are asking my opinion, but realistically what does my opinion,
or your opinion, have to do with the question? After all I was a
competitive pistol shooter while you, from what you have posted, have
very little, if any, real experience with firearms. Based of
familiarity with firearms obviously my opinion may carry more weight
then yours.

After all, your arguments all fall in the "Ohooo those things are so
dangerious" while I have tried to furnish actual data.

I suggest that, at least on this subject, that you are a prejudiced
person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own. A
bigot, in other words.
--
Cheers,

John B.


If I may, the correct answer is, "The whole nine yards."

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

On 10/20/2017 7:46 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

OK, looks like data is soft; but what I'm finding indicates there
might be, very roughly, 1,000 police killings per
year. http://www.newsweek.com/how-many-ame...ch-year-480712

It's not only soft, the authorities responsible have intentionally made
it difficult to collect. A grain of salt is advised.

Let me know if you have a better number.

Most of those are almost certainly people who are confronted by cops
as a result of some (alleged?) illegal activity on their part. Sorry,
but that's not going to be me.

You might think so, but if you've been reading the news for the past few
years you should know that people have been killed by cops in the US for
no discernible reason, when they were not engaged in any questionable
behavior at all.

I know there have been unjustified (or perhaps, very poorly justified)
killings by cops. But I still believe MOST killed by cops are as a
result of some illegal activity.

The following is an anecdote not intended to prove that point; but it is
an interesting example. In my tiny suburban village perhaps 20 years
ago, there was a killing. A cop pulled over a guy in a hopped up car who
was blasting music very loudly through its open windows. There was some
kind of tussle, and the first reports said the young guy tried to drive
away from the cop and was shot.

The newspaper immediately portrayed it as an unjustifiable killing. They
described the nice young man (who worked for the paper) as a guy who
loved music, who would often take breaks from his job of loading
newspapers into trucks in order to smile and tilt his head back toward
the sun while listening to tunes. Such a nice young man!

Then the police department (and a witness, IIRC) released the details.
The nice young man had about a thousand dollars in cash plus lots of
cocaine in his car. He also had a handgun under the seat. He was
reaching for the handgun when the cop reached in to try to stop him from
grabbing it. As they struggled over the gun, the guy tried to roar off
with the cop being dragged from the open driver's door. The cop managed
to pull his own gun and shoot the guy once.

Hardened felons know when to give up, assume the
position, and suck up a roadside beating.

Well, perhaps some might.

But even so, there are at least 30 times as many non-police gun deaths
in the U.S.

This site https://twitter.com/GunDeaths lists 284 mass shootings so
far in 2017. Since they're usually defined as four or more
casualties, it's almost certain the total count of casualties is over
1000. Those are not deaths, of course; but unlike police actions,
those are usually people not involved in law breaking at the time.

The cases most noised about most in the media feature large numbers of
victims, killed for no apparent reason. These are scary and tragic, but
not a significant cause of death.

That's hardly unusual "noise" from the media, and not at all surprising.
Something over 30,000 motorists are killed each year. But if one massive
freeway event killed hundreds - say, sudden and unpredictable black ice
causing 100 cars to slide off a mountain into a gorge - of _course_
there would be heavy news coverage. Only a fool would say "Get over it;
lots more are killed in two-car crashes."

And BTW, if such a thing happened, there would certainly be immediate
efforts to make sure that tragedy didn't occur again.

But it's different with American gun massacres.
https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-p...s-r-1819578287

I think all the gun deaths are a problem. Yes, even those where cops
pulled the trigger. And I'll note that in countries not awash in guns,
cops rarely have to kill anyone.

The US problem with cops killing civilians has very little to do with
guns, it has to do with a failure to hold them accountable for actions
that would put you or I behind bars for many years.

Yeah, damned cops. Fire all the cops, and just let vigilantes with guns
make those split-second decisions, right? Our society would be SO much
better. Kind of like Mogadishu at its best!


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/20/2017 8:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 15:48:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/20/2017 2:15 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:36:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/19/2017 1:56 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 23:48:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

OK, I answered your question. You should now answer mine. How many
rounds does a private citizen's gun really need to fire in a minute? And
why?

I really enjoy the sarcasm. But I would comment that RPM, rather than
being some archaic number used in ancient times is the current
standard method of measuring the speed at which a firearm fires.

You're refusing to answer.

I'm not asking about any "current standard method of measuring speed,"
because that's not what I'm interested in. Instead I'm asking how many
rounds does a private citizen's gun really need to fire in one minute.

Since you pretend to have trouble understanding that, let me illustrate:
I start a stop watch. You start to shoot. In one minute, I say "STOP!"
How many shots, during that minute, are the minimum necessary for
practical purposes? And exactly why do you choose that number?

But again, I find your question to be ambiguous at best.

That's not a problem with the question. The real problem is you
absolutely don't want to answer.


No, you are being ambiguous. Your first cry was, if I remember
correctly, was them guns fire too fast and you suggested some sort of
button that had to be pushed before pulling the trigger. Now you are
into "the minimum necessary for practical purposes?"

Your memory is faulty. But in any case, why not answer the question I'm
asking now? I've rephrased it several times hoping that you would A)
understand, then B) really answer.

How many rounds does a private citizen's gun really need to fire in one
minute? And why do you pick that number?


And I have answered. In considerable detail.

You have obfuscated. An honest answer to the first question would have
required just one number. You still refuse to give that answer.

But as I have said you are being ambiguous. Deliberately I believe, as
the answer depends on what your "private citizen really needs to
fire". What is the definition of "private citizen" and "really needs
to do" mean?

I'm perfectly willing to discuss reasonable meanings for those terms.

I'd say "private citizen" means someone not enlisted in the military;
someone who is not a law officer; someone who is not a licensed security
guard or other such person whose job it is to carry a gun and be
prepared to shoot it.

I'd say incidents of "real need" would include hunting; shooting to
control livestock predators or other "varmint" animals; and incidents of
real self-defense, or defense of others in immediate deadly danger.

Sorry, no matter how you may love it, I don't think of target shooting
as a "real need" for more than ten shots in one minute. The only target
shooters who exceed that (in fact, almost the only ones who fire bursts
at targets at all) are either police or military in training for killing
others, which unfortunately they need to know; and macho gun fetishists
who fantasize about doing the same.

When I was shooting on Air Force pistol teams was I shooting as a
"private citizen"? I was shooting in competitions labeled as Maine
State Championship, Massachusetts State Championship, specifically
aimed at all shooters.

Fine. Were you shooting off more than ten rounds in one minute? In
almost all cases of target shooting competitions, nobody is. It's not
needed.

You initially talked about rates of fire - "Ohooo those guns shoot so
fast...". When that position became untenable you have now changed to
"how many shots in a minute", I note that this change was after I had
explained the difference between cyclic rate of fire and sustained
rate of fire, so now you are falling back on what I suspect is your
final argument.

Bull****, John. I never used that particular phrase, and stating the
problems arising from rapid firing rates never became untenable.

I initially wrote against guns designed only for killing people, as
opposed to hunting, farm use, realistic self defense, target shooting,
etc. I said the capability of firing more than one round per second was
only for killing people.

As I pointed out, if a perpetrator can't shoot fast (like Whitman in
that Texas tower, compared to Paddock in Las Vegas) he'll do a lot less
damage before he's stopped. That's still true, despite your imagined
disproof.

The question of shots actually fired in a minute came up only after you
pretended that target shooting a few rapid shots justifies actually
shooting hundreds of rounds in one minute.

Now you are asking my opinion, but realistically what does my opinion,
or your opinion, have to do with the question?

Are you saying you want to go back to discussing data? Then try this:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...vidence-shows/

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/20/2017 9:25 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/20/2017 7:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 15:48:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/20/2017 2:15 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:36:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/19/2017 1:56 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 23:48:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

OK, I answered your question. You should now answer mine. How many
rounds does a private citizen's gun really need to fire in a
minute? And
why?

I really enjoy the sarcasm. But I would comment that RPM, rather than
being some archaic number used in ancient times is the current
standard method of measuring the speed at which a firearm fires.

You're refusing to answer.

I'm not asking about any "current standard method of measuring speed,"
because that's not what I'm interested in. Instead I'm asking how many
rounds does a private citizen's gun really need to fire in one minute.

Since you pretend to have trouble understanding that, let me
illustrate:
I start a stop watch. You start to shoot. In one minute, I say "STOP!"
How many shots, during that minute, are the minimum necessary for
practical purposes? And exactly why do you choose that number?

But again, I find your question to be ambiguous at best.

That's not a problem with the question. The real problem is you
absolutely don't want to answer.


No, you are being ambiguous. Your first cry was, if I remember
correctly, was them guns fire too fast and you suggested some sort of
button that had to be pushed before pulling the trigger. Now you are
into "the minimum necessary for practical purposes?"

Your memory is faulty. But in any case, why not answer the question I'm
asking now? I've rephrased it several times hoping that you would A)
understand, then B) really answer.

How many rounds does a private citizen's gun really need to fire in one
minute? And why do you pick that number?


And I have answered. In considerable detail.

But as I have said you are being ambiguous. Deliberately I believe, as
the answer depends on what your "private citizen really needs to
fire". What is the definition of "private citizen" and "really needs
to do" mean?

When I was shooting on Air Force pistol teams was I shooting as a
"private citizen"? I was shooting in competitions labeled as Maine
State Championship, Massachusetts State Championship, specifically
aimed at all shooters.

What does "really need to fire" mean? House defense? Hunting the
savage mountain lions? Getting rid of mice in the attic? Participating
in Olympic shooting events?

You initially talked about rates of fire - "Ohooo those guns shoot so
fast...". When that position became untenable you have now changed to
"how many shots in a minute", I note that this change was after I had
explained the difference between cyclic rate of fire and sustained
rate of fire, so now you are falling back on what I suspect is your
final argument.

Now you are asking my opinion, but realistically what does my opinion,
or your opinion, have to do with the question? After all I was a
competitive pistol shooter while you, from what you have posted, have
very little, if any, real experience with firearms. Based of
familiarity with firearms obviously my opinion may carry more weight
then yours.

After all, your arguments all fall in the "Ohooo those things are so
dangerious" while I have tried to furnish actual data.

I suggest that, at least on this subject, that you are a prejudiced
person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own. A
bigot, in other words.
--
Cheers,

John B.


If I may, the correct answer is, "The whole nine yards."

And why?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/20/2017 9:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/20/2017 8:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 15:48:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/20/2017 2:15 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:36:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/19/2017 1:56 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 23:48:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

OK, I answered your question. You should now answer
mine. How many
rounds does a private citizen's gun really need to
fire in a minute? And
why?

I really enjoy the sarcasm. But I would comment that
RPM, rather than
being some archaic number used in ancient times is the
current
standard method of measuring the speed at which a
firearm fires.

You're refusing to answer.

I'm not asking about any "current standard method of
measuring speed,"
because that's not what I'm interested in. Instead I'm
asking how many
rounds does a private citizen's gun really need to fire
in one minute.

Since you pretend to have trouble understanding that,
let me illustrate:
I start a stop watch. You start to shoot. In one
minute, I say "STOP!"
How many shots, during that minute, are the minimum
necessary for
practical purposes? And exactly why do you choose that
number?

But again, I find your question to be ambiguous at best.

That's not a problem with the question. The real
problem is you
absolutely don't want to answer.


No, you are being ambiguous. Your first cry was, if I
remember
correctly, was them guns fire too fast and you suggested
some sort of
button that had to be pushed before pulling the trigger.
Now you are
into "the minimum necessary for practical purposes?"

Your memory is faulty. But in any case, why not answer
the question I'm
asking now? I've rephrased it several times hoping that
you would A)
understand, then B) really answer.

How many rounds does a private citizen's gun really need
to fire in one
minute? And why do you pick that number?


And I have answered. In considerable detail.

You have obfuscated. An honest answer to the first question
would have required just one number. You still refuse to
give that answer.

But as I have said you are being ambiguous. Deliberately I
believe, as
the answer depends on what your "private citizen really
needs to
fire". What is the definition of "private citizen" and
"really needs
to do" mean?

I'm perfectly willing to discuss reasonable meanings for
those terms.

I'd say "private citizen" means someone not enlisted in the
military; someone who is not a law officer; someone who is
not a licensed security guard or other such person whose job
it is to carry a gun and be prepared to shoot it.

I'd say incidents of "real need" would include hunting;
shooting to control livestock predators or other "varmint"
animals; and incidents of real self-defense, or defense of
others in immediate deadly danger.

Sorry, no matter how you may love it, I don't think of
target shooting as a "real need" for more than ten shots in
one minute. The only target shooters who exceed that (in
fact, almost the only ones who fire bursts at targets at
all) are either police or military in training for killing
others, which unfortunately they need to know; and macho gun
fetishists who fantasize about doing the same.

When I was shooting on Air Force pistol teams was I
shooting as a
"private citizen"? I was shooting in competitions labeled
as Maine
State Championship, Massachusetts State Championship,
specifically
aimed at all shooters.

Fine. Were you shooting off more than ten rounds in one
minute? In almost all cases of target shooting competitions,
nobody is. It's not needed.

You initially talked about rates of fire - "Ohooo those
guns shoot so
fast...". When that position became untenable you have now
changed to
"how many shots in a minute", I note that this change was
after I had
explained the difference between cyclic rate of fire and
sustained
rate of fire, so now you are falling back on what I
suspect is your
final argument.

Bull****, John. I never used that particular phrase, and
stating the problems arising from rapid firing rates never
became untenable.

I initially wrote against guns designed only for killing
people, as opposed to hunting, farm use, realistic self
defense, target shooting, etc. I said the capability of
firing more than one round per second was only for killing
people.

As I pointed out, if a perpetrator can't shoot fast (like
Whitman in that Texas tower, compared to Paddock in Las
Vegas) he'll do a lot less damage before he's stopped.
That's still true, despite your imagined disproof.

The question of shots actually fired in a minute came up
only after you pretended that target shooting a few rapid
shots justifies actually shooting hundreds of rounds in one
minute.

Now you are asking my opinion, but realistically what does
my opinion,
or your opinion, have to do with the question?

Are you saying you want to go back to discussing data? Then
try this:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...vidence-shows/




Hunting and target shooting are red herrings as regards the
innate natural right to self defense affirmed by the 2d
Amendment.

http://www.wral.com/sanford-woman-sh...der-/16818090/

I say again, to establish a number, "the whole nine yards."

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

On 10/20/2017 9:07 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/20/2017 9:25 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/20/2017 7:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 15:48:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/20/2017 2:15 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:36:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/19/2017 1:56 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 23:48:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

OK, I answered your question. You should now answer
mine. How many
rounds does a private citizen's gun really need to
fire in a minute? And
why?

I really enjoy the sarcasm. But I would comment that
RPM, rather than
being some archaic number used in ancient times is
the current
standard method of measuring the speed at which a
firearm fires.

You're refusing to answer.

I'm not asking about any "current standard method of
measuring speed,"
because that's not what I'm interested in. Instead I'm
asking how many
rounds does a private citizen's gun really need to
fire in one minute.

Since you pretend to have trouble understanding that,
let me illustrate:
I start a stop watch. You start to shoot. In one
minute, I say "STOP!"
How many shots, during that minute, are the minimum
necessary for
practical purposes? And exactly why do you choose that
number?

But again, I find your question to be ambiguous at best.

That's not a problem with the question. The real
problem is you
absolutely don't want to answer.


No, you are being ambiguous. Your first cry was, if I
remember
correctly, was them guns fire too fast and you
suggested some sort of
button that had to be pushed before pulling the
trigger. Now you are
into "the minimum necessary for practical purposes?"

Your memory is faulty. But in any case, why not answer
the question I'm
asking now? I've rephrased it several times hoping that
you would A)
understand, then B) really answer.

How many rounds does a private citizen's gun really need
to fire in one
minute? And why do you pick that number?


And I have answered. In considerable detail.

But as I have said you are being ambiguous. Deliberately
I believe, as
the answer depends on what your "private citizen really
needs to
fire". What is the definition of "private citizen" and
"really needs
to do" mean?

When I was shooting on Air Force pistol teams was I
shooting as a
"private citizen"? I was shooting in competitions labeled
as Maine
State Championship, Massachusetts State Championship,
specifically
aimed at all shooters.

What does "really need to fire" mean? House defense?
Hunting the
savage mountain lions? Getting rid of mice in the attic?
Participating
in Olympic shooting events?

You initially talked about rates of fire - "Ohooo those
guns shoot so
fast...". When that position became untenable you have
now changed to
"how many shots in a minute", I note that this change was
after I had
explained the difference between cyclic rate of fire and
sustained
rate of fire, so now you are falling back on what I
suspect is your
final argument.

Now you are asking my opinion, but realistically what
does my opinion,
or your opinion, have to do with the question? After all
I was a
competitive pistol shooter while you, from what you have
posted, have
very little, if any, real experience with firearms. Based of
familiarity with firearms obviously my opinion may carry
more weight
then yours.

After all, your arguments all fall in the "Ohooo those
things are so
dangerious" while I have tried to furnish actual data.

I suggest that, at least on this subject, that you are a
prejudiced
person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from
his own. A
bigot, in other words.
--
Cheers,

John B.


If I may, the correct answer is, "The whole nine yards."

And why?



It's a priori silly to ask, especially if it's the life of
your dependent or your own in the balance.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-n...r-dead-8896358

You surely would not suggest that her rate of fire was
excessive, would you? What if she had only a five shot
revolver? What if she had some slower regulated fire rate?
Remember it's three-on-one at four in the morning and 911 is
just twenty minutes away.

And because that's all there are in a can of .50, 9 yards =
roughly 350 rounds if I recall. Yes it's a ridiculous answer
but it's a ridiculous question.

In firearms training, one learns that the television and
'cowboy' ethos is fanciful and unlawful. For example,
there's no excuse for a 'warning shot' which is itself
criminal - an illegal discharge. 'Brandishing' is also a
crime most places.

If there's a direct and imminent threat to human life, stop
that threat, as the woman in link above did. I would not
fault her for emptying a magazine or even exchanging
magazines in the specific case.

If there's no threat to human life, then keep you hand off
that firearm altogether. I suspect that nearly all firearms
owners have never pointed a firearm at a human and virtually
all of us hope that day never comes to us.

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