Really, really dumb

On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 11:15:59 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/11/2020 5:34 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 11:02:37 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/10/2020 10:08 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:45:15 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 8:54:54 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/10/2020 5:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/10/2020 1:08 PM, wrote:

Tell us all what happens to any state that bans the
ownership of weapons.

No state ever has. It's a right wing fantasy.


Mexico does.

You're allowed to have weapons in Mexico. You're allowed to have
weapons in every other nation on earth.

But no nation on earth allows _all_ types of weapons for _any_ people.
Even though when bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/10/mexico...everal-others/

Maybe they just "need better laws".

The alternative is ... what? Give the kid an AR-15 instead? That
doesn't seem to work well here.


I find it interesting that AR-15's seem to be treasured mainly by
those who never had to carry them in earnest. :-)


An AR-15 is a small-caliber semi. Doesn't fire any faster
than a revolver. Or a 30.06 M1, which has a lot more impact.
It's not a 'military' weapon, and certainly not at all a
sturmgewehr.

Yes, it is a small caliber weapon but there seems to be an implication
that "small" is somehow not dangerous and one of the design parameters
of the original AR-15, from which the 223 Remington cartridge descends
required the penetration of .135" steel plate at 500 yards.


It is amazingly popular and thus has staggeringly large
selections of variants, options, support, parts, ammo and so
on at very low prices. What it doesn't have is magic;
neither good nor evil mojo.

You fail to mention that modification of the AR-15 to convert the
weapon to a fully automatic weapon also is a common practice. So
common, in fact, that Amazon even sells a manual of instructions for
doing so. See:
https://www.amazon.com/Full-Auto-Ar-.../dp/9991697322


Yes, it's mechanically simple to convert to full-auto, just
like the M1911A1 pistol, and equally illegal. While almost
every bar has a dice game, almost every neighborhood has a
dope dealer or two, almost every freeway runs at well over
the posted limit, it's surprising that there are not more
illegal full-auto weapons. Yet they are vanishingly rare.

I'm not sure about "vanishingly rare" as the parts necessary to
convert an AR-15 to full auto are sold openly and while granted there
is a small amount of machining necessary to make them fit it is still
a pretty simple task and I can only assume that if they are commonly
sold then someone is buying them.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 11:09:18 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/11/2020 12:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/11/2020 12:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/11/2020 11:16 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/11/2020 12:02 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/10/2020 10:08 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:45:15 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 8:54:54 PM UTC-5, AMuzi
wrote:
On 1/10/2020 5:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/10/2020 1:08 PM, wrote:

Tell us all what happens to any state that bans the
ownership of weapons.

No state ever has. It's a right wing fantasy.


Mexico does.

You're allowed to have weapons in Mexico. You're allowed
to have
weapons in every other nation on earth.

But no nation on earth allows _all_ types of weapons for
_any_ people.
Even though when bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will
have bombs.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/10/mexico...everal-others/



Maybe they just "need better laws".

The alternative is ... what? Give the kid an AR-15
instead? That
doesn't seem to work well here.


I find it interesting that AR-15's seem to be treasured
mainly by
those who never had to carry them in earnest. :-)


An AR-15 is a small-caliber semi. Doesn't fire any faster
than a revolver. Or a 30.06 M1, which has a lot more
impact. It's not a 'military' weapon, and certainly not at
all a sturmgewehr.

So, back to my question: Give them to kids? All kids? Or
just the ones fixated on first person shoot-em-up games? Or
what?



In my youth, grammar school age boys brought rifles to
school in hunting season, picked up by their fathers in
the remains of daylight. Nothing notable ever happened.

Yes. But somehow those hunters managed without having to
spray a dozen rounds into a rabbit or a deer within a few
seconds. I'd be embarrassed to say I needed that capability
for hunting.

But back to my question: Give AR-15s to kids? All kids? Or
just the ones fixated on first person shoot-em-up games? Or
what?



'spray' ? utter nonsense. You watch too much CGI television.

My employee's son has been shooting targets with an AR since
age 9, my two grandsons from age 12. AR-15 is the most
common firearm in USA. Lightweight, easy to operate, simple
to clean. Standardization=popularity makes understanding the
AR-15 a very useful skill. I think most preteens would find
an M1 Garand heavy.

BTW firearm homicides used to run around 7 per 100K 40 years
ago it's now something like 3.5 per 100,000 people (compare
hospital-acquired infection deaths at 10 per 100,000, about
as many as car crashes now). This while firearm ownership
rates have soared; after 2009 more than one per human in
USA. Actual numbers don't support breathless hyperbole or panic.

As I have often reiterated "guns don't kill people, people kill
people".
--
cheers,

John B.

On 1/12/2020 5:37 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 11:15:59 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/11/2020 5:34 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 11:02:37 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/10/2020 10:08 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:45:15 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 8:54:54 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/10/2020 5:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/10/2020 1:08 PM, wrote:

Tell us all what happens to any state that bans the
ownership of weapons.

No state ever has. It's a right wing fantasy.


Mexico does.

You're allowed to have weapons in Mexico. You're allowed to have
weapons in every other nation on earth.

But no nation on earth allows _all_ types of weapons for _any_ people.
Even though when bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/10/mexico...everal-others/

Maybe they just "need better laws".

The alternative is ... what? Give the kid an AR-15 instead? That
doesn't seem to work well here.


I find it interesting that AR-15's seem to be treasured mainly by
those who never had to carry them in earnest. :-)


An AR-15 is a small-caliber semi. Doesn't fire any faster
than a revolver. Or a 30.06 M1, which has a lot more impact.
It's not a 'military' weapon, and certainly not at all a
sturmgewehr.

Yes, it is a small caliber weapon but there seems to be an implication
that "small" is somehow not dangerous and one of the design parameters
of the original AR-15, from which the 223 Remington cartridge descends
required the penetration of .135" steel plate at 500 yards.


It is amazingly popular and thus has staggeringly large
selections of variants, options, support, parts, ammo and so
on at very low prices. What it doesn't have is magic;
neither good nor evil mojo.

You fail to mention that modification of the AR-15 to convert the
weapon to a fully automatic weapon also is a common practice. So
common, in fact, that Amazon even sells a manual of instructions for
doing so. See:
https://www.amazon.com/Full-Auto-Ar-.../dp/9991697322


Yes, it's mechanically simple to convert to full-auto, just
like the M1911A1 pistol, and equally illegal. While almost
every bar has a dice game, almost every neighborhood has a
dope dealer or two, almost every freeway runs at well over
the posted limit, it's surprising that there are not more
illegal full-auto weapons. Yet they are vanishingly rare.

I'm not sure about "vanishingly rare" as the parts necessary to
convert an AR-15 to full auto are sold openly and while granted there
is a small amount of machining necessary to make them fit it is still
a pretty simple task and I can only assume that if they are commonly
sold then someone is buying them.


They're not 'sold openly' in any significant numbers. Some
pre-1981 parts exist but are rare, hence very very
expensive[1]. In the instant case from last autumn, the
'seller' was ATF, the 'customers' were in deep doodoo and
the auto sears didn't actually exist. An auto sear alone
needs a separate serial number and a $200 ATF tax stamp once
you acquire the machine gun FFL which is no small thing.

Theoretically, I'm with you. Out here in the real world, not
so much.

[1] the going rate for a bit of metal easily enclosed in
your hand is $8000 &up. Your average putz could make one but
again your average putz doesn't. Full auto used in crimes
are almost always military issue, stolen/hijacked by gangs
who have their own people inside our armories.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 9:55:43 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 4:36:19 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 2:48:05 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 9:07:07 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/11/2020 12:38 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 21:43:59 -0800 (PST), pH wrote:

snip

There is no right to own a gun in the Constitution. The Second Amendment simply prohibits the federal government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms for use in a well-regulated state militia. Nothing in the Constitution prohibited the states from taking away your gun, cutting off your testicles or doing basically anything it wanted.

The only reasons the states can't rip your gun out of your cold dead hands is because of the Fourteenth Amendment and the conclusion by some farting old white judges that gun ownership is a "fundamental right." The word "gun" or "arms" does not appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. Activist judges! AOC is right and a leading olde-tyme conservative strict constructionist!

-- Jay Beattie

I always wondered where Constitutional authority for the draft comes from.
Isn't it sort of like forced servitude, ie: slavery?

Not trying to be incendiary, just curious.

pH in Aptos

If I am not mistaken the constitution provides the authorization for
the Congress to "raise and support Armies" and I believe that the
Supreme court ruled ( in 1918 I believe) that "the power of Congress
to classify and conscript manpower for military service is beyond
question".



It was 'questioned' by some chunk of the citizenry who
turned out for the draft riots in 1863.

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


In times of national emergencies many of the rights in the Constitution can be temporarily suspended. The draft was instituted four times in the history of the US starting in the War of 1812. The latest ran from 1940 to 1973. This means that it was a year and a half before Pearl Harbor so Churchill managed to convince Roosevelt that it was coming.

That it was extended through Korea and Vietnam is curious.

Well, the question is really one of federal power versus individual liberty. You don't have a right not to be drafted. You have a right not to be a slave, and you have the right to due process before being deprived of your liberty, but you don't have a right not to be drafted. Why, because some old white farts said so. I love the 13th Amendment ipse dixit analysis:

"Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation, as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people, can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/245/366/

Okey-dokey! (turning head, coughing .. . lilting strains of "Over There" rising in the background).

In the Selective Draft Law cases, the big issue was whether there was Constitutional authority for the draft, which there is (somewhere between the lines) -- although it is questionable in peace time, but that's just a matter of definition.

-- Jay Beattie.

In time of war certain rights guaranteed by the Constitution are suspended and every founder understood that. The draft was invoked four times in the history of the US. If you want to take that to the Supreme Court and attempt to end it permanently then try it. But forgive me it I have to say that from the references you've made about the 2nd Amendment it is plain that you're not a Constitutional scholar.

Yes, Tom, I should defer to your constitutional scholarship (?). Have you looked at the Federalist papers or the other sources of history for the Second Amendment -- looked at colonial constitutions? Go do that and then report back. The pin-head NRA "everybody has an absolute right to a gun" is just not supported by the plain language or history of the Second Amendment.

And in times of war, your rights under the Constitution are not suspended -- not absent suspension of habeas corpus under Article 1, Section 9. Read Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2, 120–21 (1866):

“The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence; as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority.�

Korematsu, etc., reached a wrong result based on a balancing of national interest versus individual rights which, like I said, are not absolute and are subject to regulation, including Second Amendment rights. Notable for you, a person with documented head injuries and admitted deficits:


Ca. Welf. & Inst. Code § 8100.

A person shall not have in his or her possession or under his or her custody or control, or purchase or receive, or attempt to purchase or receive, any firearms whatsoever or any other deadly weapon if … he or she has been admitted to a facility and is receiving inpatient treatment [for a mental disorder], is a danger to self or others, even though the patient has consented to that treatment.

Ca. Welf. & Inst. Code § 8103.

No person who has been adjudicated by a court of any state to be a danger to others as a result of a mental disorder or mental illness shall purchase or receive, or attempt to purchase or receive, or have in his or her possession, custody, or control a firearm or any other deadly weapon unless there has been issued to the person a certificate by the court of adjudication upon release from treatment or at a later date stating that the person may possess a firearm or any other deadly weapon without endangering others, and the person has not, subsequent to the issuance of the certificate, again bee adjudicated by a court to be a danger to others as a result of a mental disorder or mental illness.



-- Jay Beattie.

On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 18:18:26 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/12/2020 5:37 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 11:15:59 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/11/2020 5:34 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 11:02:37 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/10/2020 10:08 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:45:15 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 8:54:54 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/10/2020 5:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/10/2020 1:08 PM, wrote:

Tell us all what happens to any state that bans the
ownership of weapons.

No state ever has. It's a right wing fantasy.


Mexico does.

You're allowed to have weapons in Mexico. You're allowed to have
weapons in every other nation on earth.

But no nation on earth allows _all_ types of weapons for _any_ people.
Even though when bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/10/mexico...everal-others/

Maybe they just "need better laws".

The alternative is ... what? Give the kid an AR-15 instead? That
doesn't seem to work well here.


I find it interesting that AR-15's seem to be treasured mainly by
those who never had to carry them in earnest. :-)


An AR-15 is a small-caliber semi. Doesn't fire any faster
than a revolver. Or a 30.06 M1, which has a lot more impact.
It's not a 'military' weapon, and certainly not at all a
sturmgewehr.

Yes, it is a small caliber weapon but there seems to be an implication
that "small" is somehow not dangerous and one of the design parameters
of the original AR-15, from which the 223 Remington cartridge descends
required the penetration of .135" steel plate at 500 yards.


It is amazingly popular and thus has staggeringly large
selections of variants, options, support, parts, ammo and so
on at very low prices. What it doesn't have is magic;
neither good nor evil mojo.

You fail to mention that modification of the AR-15 to convert the
weapon to a fully automatic weapon also is a common practice. So
common, in fact, that Amazon even sells a manual of instructions for
doing so. See:
https://www.amazon.com/Full-Auto-Ar-.../dp/9991697322


Yes, it's mechanically simple to convert to full-auto, just
like the M1911A1 pistol, and equally illegal. While almost
every bar has a dice game, almost every neighborhood has a
dope dealer or two, almost every freeway runs at well over
the posted limit, it's surprising that there are not more
illegal full-auto weapons. Yet they are vanishingly rare.

I'm not sure about "vanishingly rare" as the parts necessary to
convert an AR-15 to full auto are sold openly and while granted there
is a small amount of machining necessary to make them fit it is still
a pretty simple task and I can only assume that if they are commonly
sold then someone is buying them.


They're not 'sold openly' in any significant numbers. Some
pre-1981 parts exist but are rare, hence very very
expensive[1]. In the instant case from last autumn, the
'seller' was ATF, the 'customers' were in deep doodoo and
the auto sears didn't actually exist. An auto sear alone

see: https://www.brownells.com/search/ind...=m16+auto+sear
for parts and the machining of the lower receiver shell is a rather
simple operation

needs a separate serial number and a $200 ATF tax stamp once
you acquire the machine gun FFL which is no small thing.

Theoretically, I'm with you. Out here in the real world, not
so much.

[1] the going rate for a bit of metal easily enclosed in
your hand is $8000 &up. Your average putz could make one but
again your average putz doesn't. Full auto used in crimes
are almost always military issue, stolen/hijacked by gangs
who have their own people inside our armories.

Criminals are usually not the most mechanically inclined individuals
so I would assume that no, they aren't converting weapons to full
auto. I believe that some of the Baddies of the 1030's had one or more
M1911's converted to full automatic but from the description they
simply fired an entire magazine with one pull of the trigger, which is
a common failing of the 1911 :-)
https://www.guns.com/news/2012/09/26...machine-pistol
http://sightm1911.com/1911pix/historic/DILLINGER.htm
--
cheers,

John B.

On 1/12/2020 7:07 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 18:18:26 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/12/2020 5:37 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 11:15:59 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/11/2020 5:34 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 11:02:37 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/10/2020 10:08 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:45:15 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 8:54:54 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/10/2020 5:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/10/2020 1:08 PM, wrote:

Tell us all what happens to any state that bans the
ownership of weapons.

No state ever has. It's a right wing fantasy.


Mexico does.

You're allowed to have weapons in Mexico. You're allowed to have
weapons in every other nation on earth.

But no nation on earth allows _all_ types of weapons for _any_ people.
Even though when bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/10/mexico...everal-others/

Maybe they just "need better laws".

The alternative is ... what? Give the kid an AR-15 instead? That
doesn't seem to work well here.


I find it interesting that AR-15's seem to be treasured mainly by
those who never had to carry them in earnest. :-)


An AR-15 is a small-caliber semi. Doesn't fire any faster
than a revolver. Or a 30.06 M1, which has a lot more impact.
It's not a 'military' weapon, and certainly not at all a
sturmgewehr.

Yes, it is a small caliber weapon but there seems to be an implication
that "small" is somehow not dangerous and one of the design parameters
of the original AR-15, from which the 223 Remington cartridge descends
required the penetration of .135" steel plate at 500 yards.


It is amazingly popular and thus has staggeringly large
selections of variants, options, support, parts, ammo and so
on at very low prices. What it doesn't have is magic;
neither good nor evil mojo.

You fail to mention that modification of the AR-15 to convert the
weapon to a fully automatic weapon also is a common practice. So
common, in fact, that Amazon even sells a manual of instructions for
doing so. See:
https://www.amazon.com/Full-Auto-Ar-.../dp/9991697322


Yes, it's mechanically simple to convert to full-auto, just
like the M1911A1 pistol, and equally illegal. While almost
every bar has a dice game, almost every neighborhood has a
dope dealer or two, almost every freeway runs at well over
the posted limit, it's surprising that there are not more
illegal full-auto weapons. Yet they are vanishingly rare.

I'm not sure about "vanishingly rare" as the parts necessary to
convert an AR-15 to full auto are sold openly and while granted there
is a small amount of machining necessary to make them fit it is still
a pretty simple task and I can only assume that if they are commonly
sold then someone is buying them.


They're not 'sold openly' in any significant numbers. Some
pre-1981 parts exist but are rare, hence very very
expensive[1]. In the instant case from last autumn, the
'seller' was ATF, the 'customers' were in deep doodoo and
the auto sears didn't actually exist. An auto sear alone

see: https://www.brownells.com/search/ind...=m16+auto+sear
for parts and the machining of the lower receiver shell is a rather
simple operation

needs a separate serial number and a $200 ATF tax stamp once
you acquire the machine gun FFL which is no small thing.

Theoretically, I'm with you. Out here in the real world, not
so much.

[1] the going rate for a bit of metal easily enclosed in
your hand is $8000 &up. Your average putz could make one but
again your average putz doesn't. Full auto used in crimes
are almost always military issue, stolen/hijacked by gangs
who have their own people inside our armories.

Criminals are usually not the most mechanically inclined individuals
so I would assume that no, they aren't converting weapons to full
auto. I believe that some of the Baddies of the 1030's had one or more
M1911's converted to full automatic but from the description they
simply fired an entire magazine with one pull of the trigger, which is
a common failing of the 1911 :-)
https://www.guns.com/news/2012/09/26...machine-pistol
http://sightm1911.com/1911pix/historic/DILLINGER.htm
--
cheers,

John B.


re your Brownell's link-
Completing an 80% receiver or pistol frame casting is simple
machining. I've actually done that with no troubles in a
couple of hours. Completely legal BTW, unlike manufacture or
mere possession of an auto sear, whether it's installed or not.

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

On 1/12/2020 12:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/11/2020 12:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/11/2020 12:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/11/2020 11:16 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/11/2020 12:02 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/10/2020 10:08 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:45:15 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 8:54:54 PM UTC-5, AMuzi
wrote:
On 1/10/2020 5:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/10/2020 1:08 PM, wrote:

Tell us all what happens to any state that bans the
ownership of weapons.

No state ever has. It's a right wing fantasy.


Mexico does.

You're allowed to have weapons in Mexico. You're allowed
to have
weapons in every other nation on earth.

But no nation on earth allows _all_ types of weapons for
_any_ people.
Even though when bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will
have bombs.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/10/mexico...everal-others/




Maybe they just "need better laws".

The alternative is ... what? Give the kid an AR-15
instead? That
doesn't seem to work well here.


I find it interesting that AR-15's seem to be treasured
mainly by
those who never had to carry them in earnest. :-)


An AR-15 is a small-caliber semi. Doesn't fire any faster
than a revolver. Or a 30.06 M1, which has a lot more
impact. It's not a 'military' weapon, and certainly not at
all a sturmgewehr.

So, back to my question: Give them to kids? All kids? Or
just the ones fixated on first person shoot-em-up games? Or
what?



In my youth, grammar school age boys brought rifles to
school in hunting season, picked up by their fathers in
the remains of daylight. Nothing notable ever happened.

Yes. But somehow those hunters managed without having to
spray a dozen rounds into a rabbit or a deer within a few
seconds. I'd be embarrassed to say I needed that capability
for hunting.

But back to my question: Give AR-15s to kids? All kids? Or
just the ones fixated on first person shoot-em-up games? Or
what?



'spray' ? utter nonsense. You watch too much CGI television.

My point was that hunters _don't_ spray bullets. They typically don't
fire more than one round within a minute. So what's the purpose of a gun
designed to carry a 20 round magazine and fire more than ten rounds in a
minute?

The purpose, like it or not, is to pretend to be the guy on CGI
television (which, BTW, I don't watch). That is, the macho dude who is
ready to blow away the bad guys with a spray of bullets - or, depending
on his psychology, blow away the good guys, or the school kids, or the
church-goers.

My employee's son has been shooting targets with an AR since age 9, my
two grandsons from age 12.

And others of childish minds have been doing so for longer. Why? What
are they training for that requires a gun optimized for killing people?
What skills are they learning that could not be as easily learned with
an air rifle and a .22, as my kids did?

BTW firearm homicides used to run around 7 per 100K 40 years ago it's
now something like 3.5 per 100,000 people (compare hospital-acquired
infection deaths at 10 per 100,000, about as many as car crashes now).
This while firearm ownership rates have soared; after 2009 more than one
per human in USA. Actual numbers don't support breathless hyperbole or
panic.

I'm not panicking. But unlike the NRA and its current (as opposed to
historic) members, I don't think it's a good thing to arm millions of
citizens with guns designed specifically for killing other people. Most
of the developed world agrees.

In the past, most NRA members also agreed. But in recent years, there
_has_ been panic - deliberately induced by LaPierre and the firearms
industry - leading otherwise rational people to believe that any
restriction on gun ownership meant a total ban on all firearms was just
around the corner.

It's the root of Tom's (latest) delusion above, the one about a "state
that bans the ownership of weapons." It's absolute nonsense.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 19:43:35 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/12/2020 7:07 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 18:18:26 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/12/2020 5:37 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 11:15:59 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/11/2020 5:34 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 11:02:37 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/10/2020 10:08 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:45:15 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 8:54:54 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/10/2020 5:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/10/2020 1:08 PM, wrote:

Tell us all what happens to any state that bans the
ownership of weapons.

No state ever has. It's a right wing fantasy.


Mexico does.

You're allowed to have weapons in Mexico. You're allowed to have
weapons in every other nation on earth.

But no nation on earth allows _all_ types of weapons for _any_ people.
Even though when bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/10/mexico...everal-others/

Maybe they just "need better laws".

The alternative is ... what? Give the kid an AR-15 instead? That
doesn't seem to work well here.


I find it interesting that AR-15's seem to be treasured mainly by
those who never had to carry them in earnest. :-)


An AR-15 is a small-caliber semi. Doesn't fire any faster
than a revolver. Or a 30.06 M1, which has a lot more impact.
It's not a 'military' weapon, and certainly not at all a
sturmgewehr.

Yes, it is a small caliber weapon but there seems to be an implication
that "small" is somehow not dangerous and one of the design parameters
of the original AR-15, from which the 223 Remington cartridge descends
required the penetration of .135" steel plate at 500 yards.


It is amazingly popular and thus has staggeringly large
selections of variants, options, support, parts, ammo and so
on at very low prices. What it doesn't have is magic;
neither good nor evil mojo.

You fail to mention that modification of the AR-15 to convert the
weapon to a fully automatic weapon also is a common practice. So
common, in fact, that Amazon even sells a manual of instructions for
doing so. See:
https://www.amazon.com/Full-Auto-Ar-.../dp/9991697322


Yes, it's mechanically simple to convert to full-auto, just
like the M1911A1 pistol, and equally illegal. While almost
every bar has a dice game, almost every neighborhood has a
dope dealer or two, almost every freeway runs at well over
the posted limit, it's surprising that there are not more
illegal full-auto weapons. Yet they are vanishingly rare.

I'm not sure about "vanishingly rare" as the parts necessary to
convert an AR-15 to full auto are sold openly and while granted there
is a small amount of machining necessary to make them fit it is still
a pretty simple task and I can only assume that if they are commonly
sold then someone is buying them.


They're not 'sold openly' in any significant numbers. Some
pre-1981 parts exist but are rare, hence very very
expensive[1]. In the instant case from last autumn, the
'seller' was ATF, the 'customers' were in deep doodoo and
the auto sears didn't actually exist. An auto sear alone

see: https://www.brownells.com/search/ind...=m16+auto+sear
for parts and the machining of the lower receiver shell is a rather
simple operation

needs a separate serial number and a $200 ATF tax stamp once
you acquire the machine gun FFL which is no small thing.

Theoretically, I'm with you. Out here in the real world, not
so much.

[1] the going rate for a bit of metal easily enclosed in
your hand is $8000 &up. Your average putz could make one but
again your average putz doesn't. Full auto used in crimes
are almost always military issue, stolen/hijacked by gangs
who have their own people inside our armories.

Criminals are usually not the most mechanically inclined individuals
so I would assume that no, they aren't converting weapons to full
auto. I believe that some of the Baddies of the 1030's had one or more
M1911's converted to full automatic but from the description they
simply fired an entire magazine with one pull of the trigger, which is
a common failing of the 1911 :-)
https://www.guns.com/news/2012/09/26...machine-pistol
http://sightm1911.com/1911pix/historic/DILLINGER.htm
--
cheers,

John B.


re your Brownell's link-
Completing an 80% receiver or pistol frame casting is simple
machining. I've actually done that with no troubles in a
couple of hours. Completely legal BTW, unlike manufacture or
mere possession of an auto sear, whether it's installed or not.

Ah, but from what I read on the Net there are people who are modifying
the guns. I think I remember a guy on rec.crafts.metalworking that was
modifying receivers and, again from memory, had a number of people
wanting him to modify theirs or provide a modified bottom half. And
no, nobody discussed how to install the required new parts either...
But why else would one want to modify the receiver half? :-)

I might add that yes, I have qualified with the M-16 and frankly I
would have to be pretty desperate to own one in place of a more normal
rifle. The full auto rate is extremely fast, so fast that it takes
quite some time to get used to it in order to be able to fire
controlled bursts of 2 or 3 rounds. As I told one guy at the range,
"if you just want to make noise buy Chinese firecrackers in those long
strings and set them off - about the same rate of fire as the M-16"
:-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 21:46:37 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/12/2020 12:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/11/2020 12:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/11/2020 12:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/11/2020 11:16 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/11/2020 12:02 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/10/2020 10:08 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:45:15 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 8:54:54 PM UTC-5, AMuzi
wrote:
On 1/10/2020 5:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/10/2020 1:08 PM, wrote:

Tell us all what happens to any state that bans the
ownership of weapons.

No state ever has. It's a right wing fantasy.


Mexico does.

You're allowed to have weapons in Mexico. You're allowed
to have
weapons in every other nation on earth.

But no nation on earth allows _all_ types of weapons for
_any_ people.
Even though when bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will
have bombs.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/10/mexico...everal-others/




Maybe they just "need better laws".

The alternative is ... what? Give the kid an AR-15
instead? That
doesn't seem to work well here.


I find it interesting that AR-15's seem to be treasured
mainly by
those who never had to carry them in earnest. :-)


An AR-15 is a small-caliber semi. Doesn't fire any faster
than a revolver. Or a 30.06 M1, which has a lot more
impact. It's not a 'military' weapon, and certainly not at
all a sturmgewehr.

So, back to my question: Give them to kids? All kids? Or
just the ones fixated on first person shoot-em-up games? Or
what?



In my youth, grammar school age boys brought rifles to
school in hunting season, picked up by their fathers in
the remains of daylight. Nothing notable ever happened.

Yes. But somehow those hunters managed without having to
spray a dozen rounds into a rabbit or a deer within a few
seconds. I'd be embarrassed to say I needed that capability
for hunting.

But back to my question: Give AR-15s to kids? All kids? Or
just the ones fixated on first person shoot-em-up games? Or
what?



'spray' ? utter nonsense. You watch too much CGI television.

My point was that hunters _don't_ spray bullets. They typically don't
fire more than one round within a minute. So what's the purpose of a gun
designed to carry a 20 round magazine and fire more than ten rounds in a
minute?

The purpose, like it or not, is to pretend to be the guy on CGI
television (which, BTW, I don't watch). That is, the macho dude who is
ready to blow away the bad guys with a spray of bullets - or, depending
on his psychology, blow away the good guys, or the school kids, or the
church-goers.

My employee's son has been shooting targets with an AR since age 9, my
two grandsons from age 12.

And others of childish minds have been doing so for longer. Why? What
are they training for that requires a gun optimized for killing people?
What skills are they learning that could not be as easily learned with
an air rifle and a .22, as my kids did?

BTW firearm homicides used to run around 7 per 100K 40 years ago it's
now something like 3.5 per 100,000 people (compare hospital-acquired
infection deaths at 10 per 100,000, about as many as car crashes now).
This while firearm ownership rates have soared; after 2009 more than one
per human in USA. Actual numbers don't support breathless hyperbole or
panic.

I'm not panicking. But unlike the NRA and its current (as opposed to
historic) members, I don't think it's a good thing to arm millions of
citizens with guns designed specifically for killing other people. Most
of the developed world agrees.

But Frank, every type of firearm invented in the history of the weapon
can be said to be designed for killing people. The modern bolt action
rifle is a descendent of the so called "Needle Rifle" developed in
1836, and adopted by the Prussian Army in 1841. The first "lever
action" rifle, an American classic, was developed by Benjamin Tyler
Henry. Patented in 1960 it was in the hand of Union Soldiers by mid
1862.

Even the lowly bow and arrows were the deciding factor in the Battles
of Crecy and Aquincourt. The simple sling was used by the Romans and
even earlier, as the story of David proves.

In short mankind has figured out some sort of device to kill their
opponents since Ogg picked up the first rock.

As I have repeatedly said, guns don't kill people, people kill people.



In the past, most NRA members also agreed. But in recent years, there
_has_ been panic - deliberately induced by LaPierre and the firearms
industry - leading otherwise rational people to believe that any
restriction on gun ownership meant a total ban on all firearms was just
around the corner.

It's the root of Tom's (latest) delusion above, the one about a "state
that bans the ownership of weapons." It's absolute nonsense.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sunday, 12 January 2020 22:47:17 UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 21:46:37 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/12/2020 12:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/11/2020 12:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/11/2020 12:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/11/2020 11:16 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/11/2020 12:02 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/10/2020 10:08 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:45:15 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 8:54:54 PM UTC-5, AMuzi
wrote:
On 1/10/2020 5:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/10/2020 1:08 PM, wrote:

Tell us all what happens to any state that bans the
ownership of weapons.

No state ever has. It's a right wing fantasy.


Mexico does.

You're allowed to have weapons in Mexico. You're allowed
to have
weapons in every other nation on earth.

But no nation on earth allows _all_ types of weapons for
_any_ people.
Even though when bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will
have bombs.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/10/mexico...everal-others/




Maybe they just "need better laws".

The alternative is ... what? Give the kid an AR-15
instead? That
doesn't seem to work well here.


I find it interesting that AR-15's seem to be treasured
mainly by
those who never had to carry them in earnest. :-)


An AR-15 is a small-caliber semi. Doesn't fire any faster
than a revolver. Or a 30.06 M1, which has a lot more
impact. It's not a 'military' weapon, and certainly not at
all a sturmgewehr.

So, back to my question: Give them to kids? All kids? Or
just the ones fixated on first person shoot-em-up games? Or
what?



In my youth, grammar school age boys brought rifles to
school in hunting season, picked up by their fathers in
the remains of daylight. Nothing notable ever happened.

Yes. But somehow those hunters managed without having to
spray a dozen rounds into a rabbit or a deer within a few
seconds. I'd be embarrassed to say I needed that capability
for hunting.

But back to my question: Give AR-15s to kids? All kids? Or
just the ones fixated on first person shoot-em-up games? Or
what?



'spray' ? utter nonsense. You watch too much CGI television.

My point was that hunters _don't_ spray bullets. They typically don't
fire more than one round within a minute. So what's the purpose of a gun
designed to carry a 20 round magazine and fire more than ten rounds in a
minute?

The purpose, like it or not, is to pretend to be the guy on CGI
television (which, BTW, I don't watch). That is, the macho dude who is
ready to blow away the bad guys with a spray of bullets - or, depending
on his psychology, blow away the good guys, or the school kids, or the
church-goers.

My employee's son has been shooting targets with an AR since age 9, my
two grandsons from age 12.

And others of childish minds have been doing so for longer. Why? What
are they training for that requires a gun optimized for killing people?
What skills are they learning that could not be as easily learned with
an air rifle and a .22, as my kids did?

BTW firearm homicides used to run around 7 per 100K 40 years ago it's
now something like 3.5 per 100,000 people (compare hospital-acquired
infection deaths at 10 per 100,000, about as many as car crashes now).
This while firearm ownership rates have soared; after 2009 more than one
per human in USA. Actual numbers don't support breathless hyperbole or
panic.

I'm not panicking. But unlike the NRA and its current (as opposed to
historic) members, I don't think it's a good thing to arm millions of
citizens with guns designed specifically for killing other people. Most
of the developed world agrees.

But Frank, every type of firearm invented in the history of the weapon
can be said to be designed for killing people. The modern bolt action
rifle is a descendent of the so called "Needle Rifle" developed in
1836, and adopted by the Prussian Army in 1841. The first "lever
action" rifle, an American classic, was developed by Benjamin Tyler
Henry. Patented in 1960 it was in the hand of Union Soldiers by mid
1862.

Even the lowly bow and arrows were the deciding factor in the Battles
of Crecy and Aquincourt. The simple sling was used by the Romans and
even earlier, as the story of David proves.

In short mankind has figured out some sort of device to kill their
opponents since Ogg picked up the first rock.

As I have repeatedly said, guns don't kill people, people kill people.



In the past, most NRA members also agreed. But in recent years, there
_has_ been panic - deliberately induced by LaPierre and the firearms
industry - leading otherwise rational people to believe that any
restriction on gun ownership meant a total ban on all firearms was just
around the corner.

It's the root of Tom's (latest) delusion above, the one about a "state
that bans the ownership of weapons." It's absolute nonsense.
--
cheers,

John B.

And, "Gun control is hitting what you're aiming at". I also like the saying that it's better to have a gun and never need it than to need a gun and not have it.

Frank is up to his old trick of calling people names if he doesn't agree with them when he calls anyone who likes a rapid-firing rifle "childish". A lot of people simply find them fun to use.

Cheers