Build it and they won't come

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 14:47:45 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/15/2017 1:59 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:31:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

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.

I know the few are sold today, although I shot a new one belonging to a
friend about six weeks ago. I was using them merely to illustrate that
simple means can be used to control firing rate.

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.

Baloney. You can fire aimed shots with a single action gun right now.

I'm simply replying to your statement, above, "To fire, you'd have to
push button A before each pull of trigger B".

But single action revolvers don't work that way. If you hold the
trigger back you can fire as fast as you can work the hammer.

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?

Because in Las Vegas, a gun nut was able to wound hundreds of people
largely because of his high rate of fire. If he thought it was
unimportant, why would he have bothered with the bump stocks?


That is a very arguable statement. Suppose that there was a limit on
magazine capacity. Say maximum magazine capacity shall not be more
then X cartridges?

Do you think that a high rate of fire would be important in that
case??

Rapid fire added greatly to the carnage in that mass shooting, as well
as in others. That's its detriment. What is its advantage for any
legitimate gun user? Do hunters really need to fire ten rounds in five
seconds?

Well, we could equally ask whether a bicycle rider really needs that
$3,000 carbon fiber with the 19mm tires...

(Or whether some 70 year old guy needs a 35 year old wife :-)

"Pow pow pow pow pow pow pow" is attractive only to people with the mind
of an 8-year-old pretending to be an "army man." Sadly, many
50-year-olds love to pretend that way.

Sure, and I read about 50 year and older chaps puffing up grades on a
bicycle and bragging about beating some other old geezer.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 5:24:43 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 14:50:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 10/15/2017 2:14 AM, John B. wrote:

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"?

Does Detroit do this?
http://reason.com/archives/2017/08/0...and-their-guns

Frank, ever heard of "zip guns"? The first I heard of them was back in
the 1950's when I read an article about New York kid gangs making
their own pistols. Do you think that kids in 2017 have suddenly gotten
dumber?

Well, in answer to your final question: Yes, I do think that kids in 2017 are
not as smart as kids in the 1950s. I'm talking especially about their skill
with mechanical projects. We should put that discussion in a separate thread,
though.

But regarding zip guns: You can't seriously pretend that those crude things
were as deadly as the handguns used by today's gangs. Zip guns typically
had short barrels, no rifling, and were limited to a single shot. They were
shoddily constructed compared to any marketable modern gun. Their accuracy
must have been terrible.

We could perhaps discuss restricting gun possession to the modern equivalent
of a zip gun. Allow gun nuts to have all the single shot, non-rifled, short
barrel, duct-tape assembled handguns they want. If that's deadly enough for
you, you might be able to convince me to agree.

- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 6:01:51 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:

Although it is frowned on my the "anti-gun" crowd I suggest that the
old saw that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is probably
true.

Hand grenades don't kill people. People kill people.

Does your country allow hand grenades? Should ours?

- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 6:16:05 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/15/2017 5:48 PM, James wrote:
On 16/10/17 05:56, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/15/2017 2:31 AM, John B. wrote:


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

It's not a legal term, John. It's a descriptive term I'm using.

I'm including handguns and guns with firing rates over a certain
limit. Hunters and people controlling animals like agricultural pests
(anything from crows in corn to groundhogs in gardens) don't need to
use handguns. They don't need to fire ten rounds in five seconds.
Those features (and some other ones as well) are useful only for
killing people.


An immobile injured or sick animal can be euthanized effectively with a
handgun.Â* On the horse racing tracks they use a captive bolt pistol for
the job.Â* I have heard of hunters carrying a pistol to finish the job.

When you encounter a mob of feral pigs or goats, for example, rapid fire
can be very useful in eradication programs. Perhaps not fully automatic,
because aiming is not really possible, but certainly semiauto can be
very useful.

You can argue that a tradesman doesn't necessarily "need" a particular
tool, but should that prevent tradesmen from having access to that tool
if they find it useful?Â* Should we go back to hand saws and files
because electric saws and angle grinders are the cause of many trips to
the ER?

I'd say the legality of your hypothetical tool should depend on the
balance of benefits vs. detriments.

In the case of rapid fire guns and handguns, we have "tools" that may
make it slightly easier to kill, oh, maybe a hundred horses per year. At
the same time, in the U.S. anyway, they make it much easier to kill
thousands of people.

And somehow, somehow many other civilized countries get by without them
- or at least, with a relatively tiny number of them. They achieve the
benefits in other ways, and don't suffer nearly as many of the horrific
detriments as the U.S. does.

Frank, then why don't you move there? We know that you're a "gimme" kind of guy that doesn't like the Constitution - damn guns, no socialized medicine and they just don't give you enough social security.

So why don't you take it where people will agree with you for a change?

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 7:11:25 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 5:24:43 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 14:50:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 10/15/2017 2:14 AM, John B. wrote:

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"?

Does Detroit do this?
http://reason.com/archives/2017/08/0...and-their-guns

Frank, ever heard of "zip guns"? The first I heard of them was back in
the 1950's when I read an article about New York kid gangs making
their own pistols. Do you think that kids in 2017 have suddenly gotten
dumber?

Well, in answer to your final question: Yes, I do think that kids in 2017 are
not as smart as kids in the 1950s. I'm talking especially about their skill
with mechanical projects. We should put that discussion in a separate thread,
though.

But regarding zip guns: You can't seriously pretend that those crude things
were as deadly as the handguns used by today's gangs. Zip guns typically
had short barrels, no rifling, and were limited to a single shot. They were
shoddily constructed compared to any marketable modern gun. Their accuracy
must have been terrible.

We could perhaps discuss restricting gun possession to the modern equivalent
of a zip gun. Allow gun nuts to have all the single shot, non-rifled, short
barrel, duct-tape assembled handguns they want. If that's deadly enough for
you, you might be able to convince me to agree.

- Frank Krygowski

Well now they don't have to be do they? They can download a schematic from the Internet and use a 3D printer to make a gun and they've showed how to do it on the news several times.

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 10:19:21 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 6:16:05 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/15/2017 5:48 PM, James wrote:
On 16/10/17 05:56, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/15/2017 2:31 AM, John B. wrote:


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

It's not a legal term, John. It's a descriptive term I'm using.

I'm including handguns and guns with firing rates over a certain
limit. Hunters and people controlling animals like agricultural pests
(anything from crows in corn to groundhogs in gardens) don't need to
use handguns. They don't need to fire ten rounds in five seconds.
Those features (and some other ones as well) are useful only for
killing people.


An immobile injured or sick animal can be euthanized effectively with a
handgun.Â* On the horse racing tracks they use a captive bolt pistol for
the job.Â* I have heard of hunters carrying a pistol to finish the job.

When you encounter a mob of feral pigs or goats, for example, rapid fire
can be very useful in eradication programs. Perhaps not fully automatic,
because aiming is not really possible, but certainly semiauto can be
very useful.

You can argue that a tradesman doesn't necessarily "need" a particular
tool, but should that prevent tradesmen from having access to that tool
if they find it useful?Â* Should we go back to hand saws and files
because electric saws and angle grinders are the cause of many trips to
the ER?

I'd say the legality of your hypothetical tool should depend on the
balance of benefits vs. detriments.

In the case of rapid fire guns and handguns, we have "tools" that may
make it slightly easier to kill, oh, maybe a hundred horses per year. At
the same time, in the U.S. anyway, they make it much easier to kill
thousands of people.

And somehow, somehow many other civilized countries get by without them
- or at least, with a relatively tiny number of them. They achieve the
benefits in other ways, and don't suffer nearly as many of the horrific
detriments as the U.S. does.

Frank, then why don't you move there? We know that you're a "gimme" kind of guy that doesn't like the Constitution - damn guns, no socialized medicine and they just don't give you enough social security.

So why don't you take it where people will agree with you for a change?

Tom, I don't know where you get your ideas. Not enough social security? Sorry,
since retiring I've had no financial worries. I've got excellent health care
coverage too, although I do think everyone should have that.

And as far as people agreeing with me: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/1...s-polls-243647 Less than 30% of people oppose stricter
gun control. It's just that the NRA-owned politicians won't vote for it; and
the imaginary heroes that are gun fetishists yell loudly whenever anyone
proposes any reasonable restriction.

- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 7:55:20 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 10:19:21 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 6:16:05 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/15/2017 5:48 PM, James wrote:
On 16/10/17 05:56, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/15/2017 2:31 AM, John B. wrote:


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

It's not a legal term, John. It's a descriptive term I'm using.

I'm including handguns and guns with firing rates over a certain
limit. Hunters and people controlling animals like agricultural pests
(anything from crows in corn to groundhogs in gardens) don't need to
use handguns. They don't need to fire ten rounds in five seconds.
Those features (and some other ones as well) are useful only for
killing people.


An immobile injured or sick animal can be euthanized effectively with a
handgun.Â* On the horse racing tracks they use a captive bolt pistol for
the job.Â* I have heard of hunters carrying a pistol to finish the job.

When you encounter a mob of feral pigs or goats, for example, rapid fire
can be very useful in eradication programs. Perhaps not fully automatic,
because aiming is not really possible, but certainly semiauto can be
very useful.

You can argue that a tradesman doesn't necessarily "need" a particular
tool, but should that prevent tradesmen from having access to that tool
if they find it useful?Â* Should we go back to hand saws and files
because electric saws and angle grinders are the cause of many trips to
the ER?

I'd say the legality of your hypothetical tool should depend on the
balance of benefits vs. detriments.

In the case of rapid fire guns and handguns, we have "tools" that may
make it slightly easier to kill, oh, maybe a hundred horses per year. At
the same time, in the U.S. anyway, they make it much easier to kill
thousands of people.

And somehow, somehow many other civilized countries get by without them
- or at least, with a relatively tiny number of them. They achieve the
benefits in other ways, and don't suffer nearly as many of the horrific
detriments as the U.S. does.

Frank, then why don't you move there? We know that you're a "gimme" kind of guy that doesn't like the Constitution - damn guns, no socialized medicine and they just don't give you enough social security.

So why don't you take it where people will agree with you for a change?

Tom, I don't know where you get your ideas. Not enough social security? Sorry,
since retiring I've had no financial worries. I've got excellent health care
coverage too, although I do think everyone should have that.

And as far as people agreeing with me: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/1...s-polls-243647 Less than 30% of people oppose stricter
gun control. It's just that the NRA-owned politicians won't vote for it; and
the imaginary heroes that are gun fetishists yell loudly whenever anyone
proposes any reasonable restriction.

- Frank Krygowski

Good LORD - whoever would believe that! Why the SAME people polled for your F-ing Gun Control Laws do not believe in deporting illegal aliens.

They show Trump as polling lower than any other President despite the fact that Republicans are being voted in just about everywhere. Democrat workers are changing their political affiliation and it is likely that the Republicans will pick up yet another 37 seats in the mid-terms.

Why they even report that most Republicans doubt that Hillary won the popular vote. Those rats! Of course it doesn't matter that Congress asked for registration information and only 38 states supplied it and only 12 supplied all of the requested information. From this information it was calculated that there were 3.5 million illegal votes in the areas that went heavily for Hillary. In Detroit they started a vote recount and stopped it almost immediately when they discovered that the areas that voted for Hillary had as many as 6 times more votes for Hillary than they had registered voters.

As all liberals - when the truth won't do simply lie about it.

We're waiting for you to fund another case for gun control before the Supreme Court. While it was a 5 to 4 decision last time they hinted strongly that if the subject of the RIGHT TO CARRY came up they would have a 9-0 decision to allow it since the Constitution is clear on that.

As I said - I had never before belonged to the NRA but after reading you I took out a five year membership. And they are having a great deal of trouble sending out the membership cards so many people have joined because of people like you. Their magazine subscriptions are up as well and the real polls are being sent to Congress. You don't hear the Congress talking about gun control do you? Could that be because they KNOW that "POLITICO/Morning Consult" polls are nothing more than a bag of crap?

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 7:16:26 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 6:01:51 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:

Although it is frowned on my the "anti-gun" crowd I suggest that the
old saw that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is probably
true.

Hand grenades don't kill people. People kill people.

Does your country allow hand grenades? Should ours?

Here you go Frank - something to remember about your Polish heritage:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/38210ab...auschwitz.html

Apparently these sorts of things conveniently slip your mind.

On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 5:05:02 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 1:36:34 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 12:09:18 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:

well that's a nice red herring. I'm sure Vice Lords & Latin
Kings will giggle while reading it.

Frank, could you posit a possible meaning for the phrase,
"shall not be infringed" ? What ever could they have meant
by that?

As someone mentioned earlier, there is a long history of state and local gun regulation, even in the old West. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/02/op...ol-237490.html . Even the Colonies had gun control, prohibiting blacks, Catholics and immigrants (or some combination of the three) from owning guns. The states and cities could and did regulate gun ownership until 2010 and the 5/4 opinion in McDonald v. City of Chicago. The notion that gun ownership is somehow sacred and untouchable is nonsense. Even under the Second Amendment, reasonable regulation is permissible, although its political suicide in some states where guns have become religious articles.

Ahem - and most of those gun control laws were promptly overthrown.

No. There are plenty on the books still. I'm eating an early lunch after arguing a case in the Washington Court of Appeals (Division II visiting Kelso). The appeal involved one dope who shot another dope and is blaming it on my client -- a bar, for serving alcohol to dope number one. Anyway, one thing that colored the argument is the prohibition on guns in bars in Washington. Cities in Washington and Oregon (including Portland) have all sorts of gun restrictions -- and they should. Why should civilians be put at risk by idiots toting guns to bars, movie theaters, kids piano recitals, etc., etc. etc. Check your local ordinances. You'll probably see lots of gun regulations.

-- Jay Beattie.

rOn Mon, 16 Oct 2017 07:11:23 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 5:24:43 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 14:50:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 10/15/2017 2:14 AM, John B. wrote:

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"?

Does Detroit do this?
http://reason.com/archives/2017/08/0...and-their-guns

Frank, ever heard of "zip guns"? The first I heard of them was back in
the 1950's when I read an article about New York kid gangs making
their own pistols. Do you think that kids in 2017 have suddenly gotten
dumber?

Well, in answer to your final question: Yes, I do think that kids in 2017 are
not as smart as kids in the 1950s. I'm talking especially about their skill
with mechanical projects. We should put that discussion in a separate thread,
though.

It must be that "civilization" you guys always talk about. Zip gun
making is alive and well over here. They even sell them through
Facebook posts.
https://www.phuketgazette.net/phuket...acebook-groups

But regarding zip guns: You can't seriously pretend that those crude things
were as deadly as the handguns used by today's gangs. Zip guns typically
had short barrels, no rifling, and were limited to a single shot. They were
shoddily constructed compared to any marketable modern gun. Their accuracy
must have been terrible.

A single shot rifled musket was equally a pretty crude thing and the
war that caused the most fatalities of any war in U.S. history was
fought with them.

We could perhaps discuss restricting gun possession to the modern equivalent
of a zip gun. Allow gun nuts to have all the single shot, non-rifled, short
barrel, duct-tape assembled handguns they want. If that's deadly enough for
you, you might be able to convince me to agree.

- Frank Krygowski

Probably not. But we could restrict the discussion to something that
made sense instead of some sort of wild eyed argument that guns ought
to have a button that the shooter had to push before he/she/it could
pull the trigger.
--
Cheers,

John B.