Build it and they won't come

On 10/14/2017 10:06 PM, John B. wrote:
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.

I'm not ignoring that. I'll point out (again) that an island of gun
control, so to speak, can't get excellent results in a sea free of gun
restrictions.

Canada is next to a gun-crazy nation. That's a problem for them. They
manage it pretty well by strongly resisting guns crossing the border.
Your handgun may be legal in Vermont, but that cuts no ice when you try
to take it into Quebec.

Britain's gun violence data is even better. I'm betting that it's at
least partly due to the fact that they are, indeed, an island. No
American nut-jobs are driving their with pistols under their car seats.



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.

I know that New York City has very strict gun laws. I don't know about
Los Angeles. But things like this might make some difference:
http://reason.com/archives/2017/08/0...and-their-guns


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/14/2017 10:01 AM, 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...

Oops. Godwin says this thread's officially over. Move along, nothing
more to see here.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/14/2017 12:41 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 11:50:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/13/2017 2:04 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 22:59:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/12/2017 9:39 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:59:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/12/2017 4:46 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 00:49:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/11/2017 9:38 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 11:29:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/11/2017 9:42 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 4:54:17 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote:

It seems unlikely, at best, to believe that you didn't understand the
content of the original posts between Frank and I where he commented
that punching holes in a paper target with a gun and thinking you were
a big, bad, man was childish.

I then replied "like a 60 year old guy on a CF racing bike".

I can only assume that you are interjecting your off topic remarks
deliberately. So yes, goodbye.

Walking off in a snit again John? Really, get over yourself. You're beginning to sound like Frank who denies that where the strongest guns laws are we have the highest rates of gun crimes and where the least gun laws are in effect the murder rates are insignificant.

You mean like Canada vs. the U.S.? Or like Windsor vs. Detroit? Got
numbers?

Even a casual look shows little correlation between gun ownership in
the U.S. and homicides.

Gun ownership http://tinyurl.com/ybnxnu8x
States with Extremely High Populations of Gun Owners (more than 50%)

1. Wyoming - 59.7% Homicide rate 2.7/100,000
2. Alaska - 57.8% 8.0
3. Montana - 57.7% 3.5
4. South Dakota - 56.6% 3.7
5. West Virginia - 55.4% 3.8
6. Mississippi - 55.3% 8.7
6. Idaho - 55.3% 1.9
6. Arkansas - 55.3% 6.1
9. Alabama - 51.7% 7.2
10. North Dakota - 50.7% 2.8

States with Below Median Populations of Gun Owners

40. Delaware - 25.5% Homicide rate 6.7/100,000
41. Florida - 24.5% 5.1
42. California - 21.3% 4.8
42. Maryland - 21.3% 8.6
44. Illinois - 20.2% 5.8
45. New York - 18% 3.1
46. Connecticut - 16.7% 3.3
47. Rhode Island - 12.8% 2.7
48. Massachusetts - 12.6% 1.9
49. New Jersey - 12.3% 4.1
50. Hawaii - 6.7% 1.3

Homicide rate from
http://tinyurl.com/gp9usuy

The State with the lowest homicide rate is New Hampshire (1.1/100,000)
and gun ownership of 30%.

I've been generally aware of that data for quite a while. Digging
deeper, here is what I think it shows:

States with lower population density, and especially with a greater
percentage of their population living in rural areas, tend to have more
people who own rifles and shotguns used for hunting and "varmint"
control. They also have much less of the social stress derived from
mixed cultures in dense cities.


Whether it is lower density or whatever I'm fairly sure that the
people are the major problem area.

Well, I'm sure that's true. As I understand it, places with no people
have very little crime!
But please note: I'm strongly in favor of hunting with guns. I'm
strongly in favor of most varmint control. I'm not talking about
reducing the number of guns in general.

Instead, I'm talking about reducing (or ideally, eliminating) the number
of guns specifically designed for killing other people. Those would
include guns designed or modified to shoot rapidly and to shoot many
rounds without reloading. And to further infuriate the gun nuts, I'd be
in favor of eventually reducing the number of handguns, since almost all
of those are intended as people killers.

The problem is, as I tried to point out, is that any configuration of
a "gun" can be used to kill people. Wild Bill Hickok kill at least 8
people with a .36 caliber cap and ball revolver, which is classified
as an antique and can be legally owned by anyone today.

From what I've just read, Hickok did kill several people, during a time
when lawlessness and drunken shootings were quite common. In most cases,
he killed them as a law officer acting in self defense, although several
of those seem to be questionable. But they were almost always one-on-one
situations. I don't see that having a gun that fired only once in five
seconds would have made a difference.

In any case, "Other things can kill so don't ban guns specially designed
for killing people" seems a specious argument. We do ban other things
specially designed for killing people, and no sane person thinks it's an
attack on their second amendment rights. (Thank God the National Hand
Grenade Association isn't as flush with money as the NRA.)

So: If we could correlate the number of non-hunting guns with gun
homicide rates, I suspect we'd see much different results. I think the
number of people-killing guns correlates pretty well with the rate of
gun deaths.

But I doubt that information is out there. The NRA has successfully
purchased laws that prohibit studying gun violence too closely.

I'm not so sure about that...

Really? See
http://www.latimes.com/business/hilt...nap-story.html

... as without very much effort I seem to find
a considerable amount of official data regarding shootings.

Find me the data I asked about: the correlation between the number of
guns designed specifically for killing people vs. homicide rates. The
types of guns I'm thinking of are rapid fire (say, more than one round
per second) and/or high capacity (say, more than 20 rounds), plus
handguns. Yes, I understand that a very few handguns are used for
hunting, but that's a very small percentage of handgun use.

Ah Frank, now you are down to one shot per second :-)

But more to the point, why should I - a law abiding citizen - be
deprived of my right to use a pistol to shoot deer with? Or woodchucks
for that matter? To my personal knowledge no one in my family has shot
a human for five generations.

Why should you be deprived of that "right"? For the same reason that an
avid admirer of explosives of all kinds is not allowed to possess hand
grenades. Heck, it's getting really difficult to find a place to buy C-4
plastic explosive material, just because of the oppressive and unjust
anti-explosive laws!

(Fun fact: I have a friend who bought some C-4 from a local guy as part
of a sting operation, which sent the seller to prison. After his
release, in a completely unrelated event, I got to meet the guy with the
prison time. He remarked at one time "These things are so strong you
couldn't even blow them up!" My friend said "Yep. He would know.")

Getting back to the point: Why should handguns, grenades and explosives
and rapid-fire people killers be highly controlled? It's a matter of
benefits vs. detriments. Regarding the handgun, the benefit is some dude
gets to brag "I took that buck with a handgun!" (IOW "Wow, I am highly
skilled and manly!") the detriment is thousands of handgun deaths per
year, far more per capita than any other advanced westernized country.
The detriment is far greater than the benefit.
It might also be noted that of the large "gun death" numbers quoted in
many articles about the dangers of gun ownership, that for the past 35
years (as of 2015) the majority of the "gun deaths" have been suicide.

Yes, depending on the article. Some data counts gun deaths, some data
counts homicides.

I suppose some might say "If someone wants to shoot themselves, that's
no problem." But society as a whole tends to disagree. Much work is done
to prevent suicide. Lots of money is spent on 911 operator training,
counseling centers, psychiatry and psychology etc. A lot of that is
employed after a failed suicide attempt, and the near-victims are often
glad they got a second chance to avoid the "permanent solution to a
temporary problem." But with guns, there usually is no second chance.


You appear to keep ignoring my point(s) that none of your suggestions,
i.,e. 5 seconds between rounds, big magazines,etc., are at all
practical.

What are the laws where you're living?


Here, firearms seem to be divided into two categories, I can't provide
the exact translation but in broad terms they would be "war weapons"
and "not war weapons". An M-16 or a .45 colt, 1911, pistol are war
weapons and a 9mm pistol is not. Military hand grenades are war
weapons while a ping-pong ball full of black powder is not.

The difference seems to be in the penalties imposed. War weapons seem
to get jail sentences while not-war may or may not.

What are the laws in Britain, Ireland, France, Germany, etc.?

http://www.theonion.com/article/no-w...ere-this-36131

Motor vehicles:
http://www.newsweek.com/2015-brought...0-years-427759
38,300 deaths and 4.4 million injured

Bicycles:
http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm
818 deaths and 45,000 injured

http://www.billboard.com/articles/ne...g-mandalay-bay
59 deaths and 527 injured

A: Logic problems. You're comparing annual deaths for motor vehicles and
bicycles to deaths from ONE nut case on one evening in Las Vegas.

B: As has been stated, motor vehicles, bicycles, stairs, beds and other
items causing death have valid uses. The deaths they cause are
regrettable side effects. People-killer guns are different. Those deaths
are their _intended_ effect.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:17:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

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.* Those who disagree with the premise should argue
for repeal.
Once we start repealing the Bill of Rights I'll bet
there's quite a bit
of it that will be found dispensable.

The second amendment is a terrible piece of writing. My 10th
grade English teacher would have had red marks all over it,
and not just for style. Obviously, the very meaning was so
unclear that serious, intelligent and even impartial readers
have disagreed over interpretation for hundreds of years.

So don't go "slippery slope" on me. It's an amendment, and
it can be amended. Other aspects of the constitution have
been amended and even repealed. The 18th amendment seemed
like a good idea. When the effects became apparent, the 21st
corrected the situation.

We're now seeing the modern results of a terribly written
2nd amendment: a gun murder rate that eclipses any other
modern industrialized country. We should amend that
amendment, and put specific, rational limits on gun nuts.

As I said, if people want to discuss specific time limits
for
subsequent rounds, I'm happy to do so. I'm sure Joerg's
life has been
saved only by his ability to get a second round into a
mountain lion
really quickly. But I bet fast firepower causes far more
deaths than
it prevents.

BTW, I'm sure I can fire at least two shots per second
with the gun in
my basement. I haven't tried, because all my practice has
been for
accuracy, not speed. But a five second wait would never have
inconvenienced me.

So how do you propose to enforce the five second limit?
It would seem
to outlaw essentially all repeating firearms, and almost
all breech
loading single shot firearms.* Most muzzle loaders would
be ok, as long
as some clever ATF guy couldn't figure out how to reload
in four seconds.

Again: If you don't like five seconds, we can discuss
specific firing rates.

But how to enforce? First, outlaw and buy back
purpose-designed rapid-fire guns something like what
Australia did. Second, I'd be shocked if it were impossible
to design a mechanical or electronic damper system to limit
fire rates.


Reading the legislative history of it, besides The Federalist (Hamilton,
Madison & Jay) the intent, that the nation would do well to be armed, to
a man, is clear.

"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.

Sure, and the method that they selected to do it was to ensure that
the individual was not prevented from owning a gun.

I might note that the possibility of modifications to the U.S.
Constitution has existed since the document was accepted as the law of
the U.S. so I can only assume that to date the 2nd amendment must be
acceptable to a majority of the states.

You might also want to look at
https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/mu...fter-gun-bans/
as it is a bit illuminating regarding gun bans and murder rates.
also
https://crimeresearch.org/about-us/ and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott


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****.

Yes Frank, I know. But I really do believe that you are a bit
overwrought.

Not all gun owners are fat. I wasn't and from memory I don't remember
any of the many others I saw at state and national pistol matches
being fat. Current active target shooters in the U.S. is about 29.5
million, approximately 9% of the U.S. population, and another 14
million, about 4%, are hunters, although there may be some overlap
here, and from what I read the numbers are increasing - about 2%
annually.

In contrast, I read
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/pres.../cb14-r10.html
Seattle had among the highest percent of commuters who bike to work,
3.4 percent, according to 2008-2012 statistics from the American
Community Survey. (In addition, 9.1 percent of workers in Seattle
walked to work.)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 10/14/2017 4:25 PM, jbeattie wrote:

Say Tom, since when is posting an exact quote of a Trump tweet a "fake account?" All I do is re-post your links with the actual language cited in the link. It's like you post a Webster's Dictionary link claiming "black" means "white," and all I do is post to the same link and say, not suprisingly, "black" means "black." It's like shooting fish in a barrel. Your accuracy rate is about .05%.

But it is true that I don't believe your tin-foil hat websites, probably because the world for me exists beyond the Breitbart conspiracy mills and what I see on the internet.

Tom was recently featured in a cartoon.
http://tinyurl.com/y8dc4ebh


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:31:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

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.


The QWERTY keyboard was adopted not because it slowed down the rate of
character input but because it moved keys commonly struck in sequence,
"th", "st", etc., so that their typebars were not neighboring thus
avoiding jams.

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.

Nope. There are relatively few "single action" weapons built today,
i.e., that you have to manually cock.

But more pertinent an action where you had to push a button and then
pull the trigger to fire would mean that you could no longer fire
aimed shots.

But why this emphasis on rate of fire any way. Do you somehow feel
that if you were to be shot 10 times you would be deader then if only
shot 5 times?

I would also comment that a great many people that actually shoot
people for a living consider excessively high rates of fire to be a
handicap? I remember a conversation I had with a Special Forces bloke
who said the Special Forces considered the AK-47 with its 600 RPM rate
of fire to be more effective then the M-16 with its 700 - 950 RPM.

But why all the excitement anyway. Fully automatic weapons can only
be legally owned with a license from the federal government and
magazine limits were in place some years ago. The now-expired Federal
Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 included limits regarding magazines that
could hold more than ten rounds.

Interestingly the first complaint against large magazine capacity is
said to have originated with Sturm, Ruger & Co., primarily because
companies like Glock, and some other companies, manufactured pistols
with larger magazines then Ruger did.

Or at least On March 30, 1989, Ruger sent a letter to every member of
the US Congress stating: "The best way to address the firepower
concern is therefore not to try to outlaw or license many millions of
older and perfectly legitimate firearms (which would be a licensing
effort of staggering proportions) but to prohibit the possession of
high capacity magazines..."

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.
--
Cheers,

John B.

4On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:41:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/14/2017 10:06 PM, John B. wrote:
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.

I'm not ignoring that. I'll point out (again) that an island of gun
control, so to speak, can't get excellent results in a sea free of gun
restrictions.

Canada is next to a gun-crazy nation. That's a problem for them. They
manage it pretty well by strongly resisting guns crossing the border.
Your handgun may be legal in Vermont, but that cuts no ice when you try
to take it into Quebec.

Britain's gun violence data is even better. I'm betting that it's at
least partly due to the fact that they are, indeed, an island. No
American nut-jobs are driving their with pistols under their car seats.



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.

I know that New York City has very strict gun laws. I don't know about
Los Angeles. But things like this might make some difference:
http://reason.com/archives/2017/08/0...and-their-guns


But Frank, when I wrote about Vermont with their almost nonexistent
gun laws and extremely low murder rate you argued that it was because
the Vermonters all lived in rural bliss and that other places were
subjected to the pressures of living in urban environments.

But that doesn't seem to hold water as New York with its 8.5 million
population has far less crime then L.A. with less then half the
population.

By the way, Detroit, with its paltry population of 673,225 has:
murder rate of 43.8
rape rate of 78.7
robbery of 513.5
crimes against property 3529.9

A city 1/12th the size of N.Y with a murder rate 26 times higher?
Should we term it "the urban myth"?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:49:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/14/2017 12:41 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 11:50:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/13/2017 2:04 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 22:59:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/12/2017 9:39 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:59:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/12/2017 4:46 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 00:49:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/11/2017 9:38 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 11:29:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/11/2017 9:42 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 4:54:17 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote:

It seems unlikely, at best, to believe that you didn't understand the
content of the original posts between Frank and I where he commented
that punching holes in a paper target with a gun and thinking you were
a big, bad, man was childish.

I then replied "like a 60 year old guy on a CF racing bike".

I can only assume that you are interjecting your off topic remarks
deliberately. So yes, goodbye.

Walking off in a snit again John? Really, get over yourself. You're beginning to sound like Frank who denies that where the strongest guns laws are we have the highest rates of gun crimes and where the least gun laws are in effect the murder rates are insignificant.

You mean like Canada vs. the U.S.? Or like Windsor vs. Detroit? Got
numbers?

Even a casual look shows little correlation between gun ownership in
the U.S. and homicides.

Gun ownership http://tinyurl.com/ybnxnu8x
States with Extremely High Populations of Gun Owners (more than 50%)

1. Wyoming - 59.7% Homicide rate 2.7/100,000
2. Alaska - 57.8% 8.0
3. Montana - 57.7% 3.5
4. South Dakota - 56.6% 3.7
5. West Virginia - 55.4% 3.8
6. Mississippi - 55.3% 8.7
6. Idaho - 55.3% 1.9
6. Arkansas - 55.3% 6.1
9. Alabama - 51.7% 7.2
10. North Dakota - 50.7% 2.8

States with Below Median Populations of Gun Owners

40. Delaware - 25.5% Homicide rate 6.7/100,000
41. Florida - 24.5% 5.1
42. California - 21.3% 4.8
42. Maryland - 21.3% 8.6
44. Illinois - 20.2% 5.8
45. New York - 18% 3.1
46. Connecticut - 16.7% 3.3
47. Rhode Island - 12.8% 2.7
48. Massachusetts - 12.6% 1.9
49. New Jersey - 12.3% 4.1
50. Hawaii - 6.7% 1.3

Homicide rate from
http://tinyurl.com/gp9usuy

The State with the lowest homicide rate is New Hampshire (1.1/100,000)
and gun ownership of 30%.

I've been generally aware of that data for quite a while. Digging
deeper, here is what I think it shows:

States with lower population density, and especially with a greater
percentage of their population living in rural areas, tend to have more
people who own rifles and shotguns used for hunting and "varmint"
control. They also have much less of the social stress derived from
mixed cultures in dense cities.


Whether it is lower density or whatever I'm fairly sure that the
people are the major problem area.

Well, I'm sure that's true. As I understand it, places with no people
have very little crime!
But please note: I'm strongly in favor of hunting with guns. I'm
strongly in favor of most varmint control. I'm not talking about
reducing the number of guns in general.

Instead, I'm talking about reducing (or ideally, eliminating) the number
of guns specifically designed for killing other people. Those would
include guns designed or modified to shoot rapidly and to shoot many
rounds without reloading. And to further infuriate the gun nuts, I'd be
in favor of eventually reducing the number of handguns, since almost all
of those are intended as people killers.

The problem is, as I tried to point out, is that any configuration of
a "gun" can be used to kill people. Wild Bill Hickok kill at least 8
people with a .36 caliber cap and ball revolver, which is classified
as an antique and can be legally owned by anyone today.

From what I've just read, Hickok did kill several people, during a time
when lawlessness and drunken shootings were quite common. In most cases,
he killed them as a law officer acting in self defense, although several
of those seem to be questionable. But they were almost always one-on-one
situations. I don't see that having a gun that fired only once in five
seconds would have made a difference.

In any case, "Other things can kill so don't ban guns specially designed
for killing people" seems a specious argument. We do ban other things
specially designed for killing people, and no sane person thinks it's an
attack on their second amendment rights. (Thank God the National Hand
Grenade Association isn't as flush with money as the NRA.)

So: If we could correlate the number of non-hunting guns with gun
homicide rates, I suspect we'd see much different results. I think the
number of people-killing guns correlates pretty well with the rate of
gun deaths.

But I doubt that information is out there. The NRA has successfully
purchased laws that prohibit studying gun violence too closely.

I'm not so sure about that...

Really? See
http://www.latimes.com/business/hilt...nap-story.html

... as without very much effort I seem to find
a considerable amount of official data regarding shootings.

Find me the data I asked about: the correlation between the number of
guns designed specifically for killing people vs. homicide rates. The
types of guns I'm thinking of are rapid fire (say, more than one round
per second) and/or high capacity (say, more than 20 rounds), plus
handguns. Yes, I understand that a very few handguns are used for
hunting, but that's a very small percentage of handgun use.

Ah Frank, now you are down to one shot per second :-)

But more to the point, why should I - a law abiding citizen - be
deprived of my right to use a pistol to shoot deer with? Or woodchucks
for that matter? To my personal knowledge no one in my family has shot
a human for five generations.

Why should you be deprived of that "right"? For the same reason that an
avid admirer of explosives of all kinds is not allowed to possess hand
grenades. Heck, it's getting really difficult to find a place to buy C-4
plastic explosive material, just because of the oppressive and unjust
anti-explosive laws!

(Fun fact: I have a friend who bought some C-4 from a local guy as part
of a sting operation, which sent the seller to prison. After his
release, in a completely unrelated event, I got to meet the guy with the
prison time. He remarked at one time "These things are so strong you
couldn't even blow them up!" My friend said "Yep. He would know.")

Getting back to the point: Why should handguns, grenades and explosives
and rapid-fire people killers be highly controlled? It's a matter of
benefits vs. detriments. Regarding the handgun, the benefit is some dude
gets to brag "I took that buck with a handgun!" (IOW "Wow, I am highly
skilled and manly!") the detriment is thousands of handgun deaths per
year, far more per capita than any other advanced westernized country.
The detriment is far greater than the benefit.
It might also be noted that of the large "gun death" numbers quoted in
many articles about the dangers of gun ownership, that for the past 35
years (as of 2015) the majority of the "gun deaths" have been suicide.

Yes, depending on the article. Some data counts gun deaths, some data
counts homicides.

I suppose some might say "If someone wants to shoot themselves, that's
no problem." But society as a whole tends to disagree. Much work is done
to prevent suicide. Lots of money is spent on 911 operator training,
counseling centers, psychiatry and psychology etc. A lot of that is
employed after a failed suicide attempt, and the near-victims are often
glad they got a second chance to avoid the "permanent solution to a
temporary problem." But with guns, there usually is no second chance.


You appear to keep ignoring my point(s) that none of your suggestions,
i.,e. 5 seconds between rounds, big magazines,etc., are at all
practical.

What are the laws where you're living?


Here, firearms seem to be divided into two categories, I can't provide
the exact translation but in broad terms they would be "war weapons"
and "not war weapons". An M-16 or a .45 colt, 1911, pistol are war
weapons and a 9mm pistol is not. Military hand grenades are war
weapons while a ping-pong ball full of black powder is not.

The difference seems to be in the penalties imposed. War weapons seem
to get jail sentences while not-war may or may not.

What are the laws in Britain, Ireland, France, Germany, etc.?

http://www.theonion.com/article/no-w...ere-this-36131

Motor vehicles:
http://www.newsweek.com/2015-brought...0-years-427759
38,300 deaths and 4.4 million injured

Bicycles:
http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm
818 deaths and 45,000 injured

http://www.billboard.com/articles/ne...g-mandalay-bay
59 deaths and 527 injured

A: Logic problems. You're comparing annual deaths for motor vehicles and
bicycles to deaths from ONE nut case on one evening in Las Vegas.

Why ever not? After all you equate rate of fire with a dangerious
weapon.

B: As has been stated, motor vehicles, bicycles, stairs, beds and other
items causing death have valid uses. The deaths they cause are
regrettable side effects. People-killer guns are different. Those deaths
are their _intended_ effect.

What is the legal definition of a "people killer gun"?

But more to the point, an automobile driving 20 mph above the posted
limit, running a stop light, or maybe with BAC of oh say 10? Certainly
sir, a regrettable side effect...

http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/20...ehicle-crashes
"The most thorough analysis of crash causation, the Tri-Level Study of
the Causes of Traffic Accidents published in 1979, found that "human
errors and deficiencies" were a definite or probable cause in 90-93%
of the incidents examined."

http://ridemedtrust.com/americans-dy...all-time-high/

"The National Safety Council warns that preventable deaths and
injuries are a constant at every age, and lists the leading causes
throughout a person\u2019s lifetime. These leading causes a

Ages 5 to 24: Motor Vehicle accidents
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 10/14/2017 7:38 PM, John B. wrote:
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.


I can accept the 1934 (et seq) machine gun ban(s) but I've
never heard a good argument for classing suppressors in the
same lump as a real .50 cal Browning MA2.

WTF? I like belt feed as much as the next guy, but a
suppressor doesn't 'reach out and touch someone' in the same
way.

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

On 10/14/2017 7:51 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. 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.



Do you moonlight as a legislative aide in Congress?

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