Build it and they won't come

On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 12:25:17 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/11/2017 6:23 AM, Duane wrote:
Nobody is stupid enough to
think all 11 speed CF bikes are useful only for TDF riders. Both 11 speed
and CF frames are pretty much the standard offering at most bike shops
around here.

Of course, people are allowed to buy what they prefer. But I see that
"standard offering at most bike shops" as somewhat weird.

Think about it. Most people who go into most bike shops are never going
to race. Most are almost never going to try to ride fast. But it sounds
like that "standard offering" is optimized for fast riding in many ways.

I know some CF 11-speed bikes make it possible to (say) fit racks and
fenders and lights and decent-sized bags and wider tires and low gears.
But if your shops are like ours, the ones that have 11 speed CF as
"standard" tend to reject those ideas.

"28mm tires? Sorry, not on these bikes. The brakes won't allow them."
That's what a friend of mine heard.

People are allowed to buy what they prefer. But I think a lot of people
are convinced to "prefer" something that's ill-suited to their real
world riding.

Just think about 11 speeds! With 10 speed you seldom shift a single gear. You almost always shift multiple gears at one time. When the number of gears got to 8 that was the number in which you had sufficient gears and you only had to shift once at a time and also had the maximum wear characteristics since the 5 speeds.

On my Pinarello that I'm restoring I just installed Campy skeleton brakes and there is more than sufficient clearance to install 28 mm tires. I'm been using 23 mm tires but I will be changing to 25's since they have the same rolling resistance and a lower pressure according to Michelin.

On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 1:49:23 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 12:25:17 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/11/2017 6:23 AM, Duane wrote:
Nobody is stupid enough to
think all 11 speed CF bikes are useful only for TDF riders. Both 11 speed
and CF frames are pretty much the standard offering at most bike shops
around here.

Of course, people are allowed to buy what they prefer. But I see that
"standard offering at most bike shops" as somewhat weird.

Think about it. Most people who go into most bike shops are never going
to race. Most are almost never going to try to ride fast. But it sounds
like that "standard offering" is optimized for fast riding in many ways..

I know some CF 11-speed bikes make it possible to (say) fit racks and
fenders and lights and decent-sized bags and wider tires and low gears.
But if your shops are like ours, the ones that have 11 speed CF as
"standard" tend to reject those ideas.

"28mm tires? Sorry, not on these bikes. The brakes won't allow them."
That's what a friend of mine heard.

People are allowed to buy what they prefer. But I think a lot of people
are convinced to "prefer" something that's ill-suited to their real
world riding.

He said "standard offering" -- not the "only offering." BTW, my CF 11sp Norco Search gravel bike will take 35mm knobbies and fenders -- but alas, no rack. It is the softest riding road bike I have ever owned, yet it is stiffer than a steel touring bike through the BB and front end and weighs about four pounds less. If I wanted to use a rack, I'd put it on my aluminum CAADX. The Norco doesn't purport to be a touring bike.

Go into ANY bike store around here, and you'll find a variety of road bikes capable of taking big tires, fenders and racks. Take a tour of River City Bikes, for example: https://tinyurl.com/ycodvjcx They're common as fleas..

In some shops, its all they carry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Z5vtm4pd2I That's just the front showroom. The back is where I got my dyno mood light -- but not from this chipper guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8iThtyViVI Be a true hipster at yet another steel-is-real (heavy) shop: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TSMp6f-9z4

Or maybe a recumbent! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvG51TC3gOA&t=39s
For Joerg, a shop with beer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwNwBcu8t18
Classic randonneur bikes! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15JHdp092qg
We have steel bikes coming out our a**** up here in Portland!

One of my faves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NYDcJQyAAg...

Next time you're looking for a gravel bike take a look at the aluminum Redline cyclocross bikes.

On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 5:46:57 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 06:42:56 -0700 (PDT), 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.

No, not walking of in a snit. Merely waving good-bye. But I notice
that you have snipped the part of the post where the other poster
wrote that he was no longer communicating with me.

Come on now John, you know that's common practice on this group and means nearly nothing except that he will be rude to you for a couple of weeks. Personally I like being rude to you.

On 10/12/2017 9:06 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 1:49:23 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 12:25:17 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/11/2017 6:23 AM, Duane wrote:
Nobody is stupid enough to
think all 11 speed CF bikes are useful only for TDF riders. Both 11 speed
and CF frames are pretty much the standard offering at most bike shops
around here.

Of course, people are allowed to buy what they prefer. But I see that
"standard offering at most bike shops" as somewhat weird.

Think about it. Most people who go into most bike shops are never going
to race. Most are almost never going to try to ride fast. But it sounds
like that "standard offering" is optimized for fast riding in many ways.

I know some CF 11-speed bikes make it possible to (say) fit racks and
fenders and lights and decent-sized bags and wider tires and low gears.
But if your shops are like ours, the ones that have 11 speed CF as
"standard" tend to reject those ideas.

"28mm tires? Sorry, not on these bikes. The brakes won't allow them."
That's what a friend of mine heard.

People are allowed to buy what they prefer. But I think a lot of people
are convinced to "prefer" something that's ill-suited to their real
world riding.

He said "standard offering" -- not the "only offering." BTW, my CF 11sp Norco Search gravel bike will take 35mm knobbies and fenders -- but alas, no rack. It is the softest riding road bike I have ever owned, yet it is stiffer than a steel touring bike through the BB and front end and weighs about four pounds less. If I wanted to use a rack, I'd put it on my aluminum CAADX. The Norco doesn't purport to be a touring bike.

Go into ANY bike store around here, and you'll find a variety of road bikes capable of taking big tires, fenders and racks. Take a tour of River City Bikes, for example: https://tinyurl.com/ycodvjcx They're common as fleas.

In some shops, its all they carry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Z5vtm4pd2I That's just the front showroom. The back is where I got my dyno mood light -- but not from this chipper guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8iThtyViVI Be a true hipster at yet another steel-is-real (heavy) shop: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TSMp6f-9z4

Or maybe a recumbent! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvG51TC3gOA&t=39s
For Joerg, a shop with beer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwNwBcu8t18
Classic randonneur bikes! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15JHdp092qg
We have steel bikes coming out our a**** up here in Portland!

One of my faves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NYDcJQyAAg...

Next time you're looking for a gravel bike take a look at the aluminum Redline cyclocross bikes.


in 2013 maybe.
They were nice but it's a discontinued product line:
http://redlinebicycles.com/

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

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.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/12/2017 9:50 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 8:29:03 AM UTC-7, 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?

By all means compare a mixed race area in the US with a very wide economic spread with another country with a large majority of one race with a narrow economic spread because it makes your point.

Tom, if you don't like comparing the U.S. to Canada, then pick some
other economically advanced country for comparison of murder rates.
Britain? France? Germany? Netherlands? Italy?

Or how about the U.S. vs. Europe as a whole?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/12/2017 10:05 AM, wrote:

Just think about 11 speeds! With 10 speed you seldom shift a single gear. You almost always shift multiple gears at one time. When the number of gears got to 8 that was the number in which you had sufficient gears and you only had to shift once at a time and also had the maximum wear characteristics since the 5 speeds.

Higher gear counts can be used in two ways: to extend the range (highest
to lowest) or to increase the possibilities for fine-tuning ratios
within the range.

ISTM that fine-tuning within the range matters only if you're trying
hard to ride far or fast. For slow riding with novice friends or going
off to buy groceries, I'm content with 20% changes between gears. You
can get that with five cogs. When I push myself for either speed or
distance, I pay more attention to getting the gears just right.

Sufficient range is important at the low end for almost everyone, but
"sufficient" depends on fitness and terrain as well as riding style. (I
have gears I literally never use except when touring. Since my utility
bike used to be my touring bike, it has gears I absolutely never use.)

Sufficient range at the high end is, IMO, no higher than 110 gear inches
unless you're racing. In any other situation, you can always coast, and
often coast as fast as you can pedal.


--
- Frank Krygowski

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.

Read http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/396857
Which says in part "In 2012, there were eight murders there - just two
of which involved firearms." This in a state that has, essentially no
gun control laws.

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.

https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/
Guns are the preferred method of suicide and about half of all
suicides are by firearms as opposed to about 27% suffocation, the next
preferred method.

Is shooting oneself really more horrifying then hanging oneself? Or
jumping off bridges or driving into a bridge abutment at 100 mph? Or
drinking bug spray which used to be rather common in Thailand.

--
Cheers,

John B.

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.

It seems odd we spend so much on other methods of suicide prevention,
but we refuse to really control the most effective suicide tool.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 1:59:37 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Big SNIP

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.

--
- Frank Krygowski

I can fire a bolt action Lee-Enfield rifle at 10 rounds per 10 seconds. The standard magazine capacity for that rifle is 10 rounds. If I wanted to I could get another magazine or two forit, cut those magazines apart and then weld the three of them together to form a 30 rounds capacity magazine. That would allow me to fire 30 rounds in 30 seconds. If I wanted more accurate aimed fire I could support the fore-end of the rifle on a sand bag.

Actually, at close range a shotgun with a wide spread of shiot can be better than a rifle since the shotgun can hit more than one person with each shot fired.

Watch a video of the Big Sandy Shoot and marvel at the number of people with .30 caliber General Purpose Machine Guns, .50 caliber heavy machine guns, 7.62mm Electric Gatling-type machine guns, 37mm anti-tank cannons, etcetera. One guy even had a 76mm Hellcat tank destroyer with a working 76mm main gun. All those weapons had the primary purpose of killing people. A lot of people,dare I say most people with rapid-fire high-rounds capacity shoot for fun.

Btw, when hunting if you wound an animal, 5 seconds is a long time and you'd better be really good at tracking because other wise that animal will be long gone by the time you're ready to take that second shot. If it's an large angry wounded animal that charges you them your 5 seconds delay getting off a second shot could have you either dead or severely injured.

Cheers