Build it and they won't come

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 07:16:24 -0700 (PDT), 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?

- Frank Krygowski

Run around in small circles and wave your hands in the air all you
want but I've yet to hear of a gun, or a hand grenade, that suddenly
leap out of the corner and killed someone. Just as I've never heard of
a knife leaping out of a kitchen drawer and killing someone. And, if
you would face reality you would realize that.

But like many who seek simple answers for complex problems you leap on
the "Ban It" band wagon. Just exactly as the anti demon rum group
thought that the Volstead Act would eliminate the consumption of
alcohol in the U.S.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 10/16/2017 9:04 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 07:16:24 -0700 (PDT), 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?

- Frank Krygowski

Run around in small circles and wave your hands in the air all you
want but I've yet to hear of a gun, or a hand grenade, that suddenly
leap out of the corner and killed someone. Just as I've never heard of
a knife leaping out of a kitchen drawer and killing someone. And, if
you would face reality you would realize that.

But like many who seek simple answers for complex problems you leap on
the "Ban It" band wagon.

Where do you live, again? What are the gun laws where you live? And what
is the gun death rate per 100,000 population? What is the gun murder
rate per 100k? What is the total murder rate?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 16:49:43 +0700, John B.
wrote:

Ah, you mean about those dangerious bicycles that kill over 700 people
a year? Ban em!

No, no, the problem is that the riders don't know how to ride in
traffic, so we need to build totally-separate bike paths.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

On 10/16/2017 2:57 PM, jbeattie wrote:
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.

As a compromise with our gun nut posters, let's try this: Let's just
initiate Republican-approved gun control measures. Will you at least
accept those?

After all, St. Ronald Reagan said this: "There’s no reason why on the
street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons."

About handguns, he said "Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are
murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics.
This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies,
rapes, and assaults committed with handguns. This level of violence must
be stopped."

When the 1994 assault weapons ban was being debated in congress, Reagan
wrote a letter to the House of Representatives in favor of the ban. "We
are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture
of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance
to the public safety. While we recognize that assault weapon legislation
will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry
up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals.
We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement
community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons."

If Reagan is a saint (as many Republicans pretend) and if Reagan was in
favor of reasonable gun control, why not adopt his positions?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/16/2017 8:13 PM, John B. wrote:
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.

Nice try at diversion, John.

Let me state my point as a direct question: Do you, John, seriously
think a short barrel, non-rifled, single shot, crudely made zip gun is
as accurate or as deadly as the modern guns used by gangs today? A yes
or no answer will do.

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.

It's easy for you to say purposely restricting firing rate is a "wild
eyed argument." It doesn't seem to be so easy for you to explain why you
believe that's true.

Let's try this question: What minimum firing rate do you think is
absolutely necessary in a privately owned firearm? And why do you choose
that number? Please give a definite number and a rational reason.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 22:10:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/16/2017 8:13 PM, John B. wrote:
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.

Nice try at diversion, John.

Let me state my point as a direct question: Do you, John, seriously
think a short barrel, non-rifled, single shot, crudely made zip gun is
as accurate or as deadly as the modern guns used by gangs today? A yes
or no answer will do.

Nope. But then at short ranges how accurate does it have to be. As for
"deadly" then yes it is. Deadly, in essence is a factor of bullet
weight and velocity... and you know it is, or at least I suspect that
as an engineer you have a fairly good grasp of physics.

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.

It's easy for you to say purposely restricting firing rate is a "wild
eyed argument." It doesn't seem to be so easy for you to explain why you
believe that's true.

No Frank, I've given you a number of examples why rate of fire is not
a major factor. Yet another example: Charles Whitman, University of
Texas, killed 16 people, and wounded 31 more, with semi-automatic
weapons - no bump stocks, guns fired once for every trigger pull.

And, I believe that I have mentioned that the guns used in the Los
Vegas shooting were all semi-automatic, and thus legal, firearms.

Let's try this question: What minimum firing rate do you think is
absolutely necessary in a privately owned firearm? And why do you choose
that number? Please give a definite number and a rational reason.

What has minimum or maximum firing rate got to do with anything, well
other then the number of dollars that can be burned up in a limited
time?

I simply cannot understand your fetish with rate of fire as I cannot
see how it is relevant to the question. After all, as I believe I've
mentioned, any number of manually operated firearms can be fired far
faster then any rate of fire limitation that you have mentioned so
far.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 22:35:58 -0300, Joy Beeson
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 16:49:43 +0700, John B.
wrote:

Ah, you mean about those dangerious bicycles that kill over 700 people
a year? Ban em!

No, no, the problem is that the riders don't know how to ride in
traffic, so we need to build totally-separate bike paths.

The solution might be a sort of elevated bikeway which would eliminate
all the traffic lights and other inconveniences of riding on surface
streets. Of course elevators would be situated at frequent intervals
to allow convenient access.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 10:43:38 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 22:10:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 10/16/2017 8:13 PM, John B. wrote:
rOn Mon, 16 Oct 2017 07:11:23 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski wrote:


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.

Nice try at diversion, John.

Let me state my point as a direct question: Do you, John, seriously
think a short barrel, non-rifled, single shot, crudely made zip gun is
as accurate or as deadly as the modern guns used by gangs today? A yes
or no answer will do.

Nope. But then at short ranges how accurate does it have to be. As for
"deadly" then yes it is. Deadly, in essence is a factor of bullet
weight and velocity... and you know it is, or at least I suspect that
as an engineer you have a fairly good grasp of physics.

Sorry, John, you brought up homemade zip guns as evidence that banning handguns
would do no good. But it certainly would do good. The homemade guns could not
fire anywhere near as many rounds. They could not have nearly as much accuracy
at any range beyond a couple feet. At 25 feet, they'd probably miss. That means
they are NOT nearly as deadly.

So forcing thugs to build or buy homemade guns would indeed mean guns would be
less deadly.

It's easy for you to say purposely restricting firing rate is a "wild
eyed argument." It doesn't seem to be so easy for you to explain why you
believe that's true.

No Frank, I've given you a number of examples why rate of fire is not
a major factor. Yet another example: Charles Whitman, University of
Texas, killed 16 people, and wounded 31 more, with semi-automatic
weapons - no bump stocks, guns fired once for every trigger pull.

That's nonsense. No unbiased person can pretend that Whitman wouldn't have
killed many more people if he were able to fire 100 rounds per minute.

And, I believe that I have mentioned that the guns used in the Los
Vegas shooting were all semi-automatic, and thus legal, firearms.

You're making my point. Those guns should not be legal.

Let's try this question: What minimum firing rate do you think is
absolutely necessary in a privately owned firearm? And why do you choose
that number? Please give a definite number and a rational reason.

What has minimum or maximum firing rate got to do with anything, well
other then the number of dollars that can be burned up in a limited
time?

It's difficult to explain this without seeming to mock the question, but:
Assuming it takes a certain amount of time for police (or "good guys with guns")
to react to a shooting, then a whacko with a gun can fire many more rounds
before help arrives if he has a higher rate of fire. His gun is deadlier.
It can kill more people.

If rate of fire were of no importance, our military might be using muzzle
loading muskets.

Now, your reluctance to answer the questions is obvious, but I'll ask again:
What minimum firing rate do you think is absolutely necessary in a privately
owned firearm? And why do you choose that number? Please give a definite
number and a rational reason.

That is, if you can.

- Frank Krygowski





I simply cannot understand your fetish with rate of fire as I cannot
see how it is relevant to the question. After all, as I believe I've
mentioned, any number of manually operated firearms can be fired far
faster then any rate of fire limitation that you have mentioned so
far.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 21:57:00 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 10:43:38 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 22:10:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 10/16/2017 8:13 PM, John B. wrote:
rOn Mon, 16 Oct 2017 07:11:23 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski wrote:


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.

Nice try at diversion, John.

Let me state my point as a direct question: Do you, John, seriously
think a short barrel, non-rifled, single shot, crudely made zip gun is
as accurate or as deadly as the modern guns used by gangs today? A yes
or no answer will do.

Nope. But then at short ranges how accurate does it have to be. As for
"deadly" then yes it is. Deadly, in essence is a factor of bullet
weight and velocity... and you know it is, or at least I suspect that
as an engineer you have a fairly good grasp of physics.

Sorry, John, you brought up homemade zip guns as evidence that banning handguns
would do no good. But it certainly would do good. The homemade guns could not
fire anywhere near as many rounds. They could not have nearly as much accuracy
at any range beyond a couple feet. At 25 feet, they'd probably miss. That means
they are NOT nearly as deadly.

So forcing thugs to build or buy homemade guns would indeed mean guns would be
less deadly.

It's easy for you to say purposely restricting firing rate is a "wild
eyed argument." It doesn't seem to be so easy for you to explain why you
believe that's true.

No Frank, I've given you a number of examples why rate of fire is not
a major factor. Yet another example: Charles Whitman, University of
Texas, killed 16 people, and wounded 31 more, with semi-automatic
weapons - no bump stocks, guns fired once for every trigger pull.

That's nonsense. No unbiased person can pretend that Whitman wouldn't have
killed many more people if he were able to fire 100 rounds per minute.

And, I believe that I have mentioned that the guns used in the Los
Vegas shooting were all semi-automatic, and thus legal, firearms.

You're making my point. Those guns should not be legal.

What not legal? The fact that they are so called semi-automatic?

So no more semi-automatic guns in America? Like my grandfather's
Browning self loading Auto-5 shotgun. Goodness, a gun that was
designed 120 years ago? And now it has suddenly turned into a
dangerious weapon?

But Frank, I will repeat. Why this fetish about rate of fire? I would
guess that the single manually operated firearm with the highest rate
of any firearm that I have ever fired would be the double barrel
shotgun. I can certainly attain a firing rate of a tiny fraction of a
second, certainly faster then the so called bump stocks used in Los
Vegas.

Do we outlaw double barrel shotguns because of their high rate of
fire?

I keep telling you that rate of fire is an almost meaningless criteria
to measure firearms against.

So tell me. Do we outlaw the double barrel shotgun, the gun that I can
fire faster then any other gun I've ever fired?
(and yes, I qualified with the M-16 while in the A.F. so I am familiar
with a weapon that has a firing rate of about 900 RPM)


It's difficult to explain this without seeming to mock the question, but:
Assuming it takes a certain amount of time for police (or "good guys with guns")
to react to a shooting, then a whacko with a gun can fire many more rounds
before help arrives if he has a higher rate of fire. His gun is deadlier.
It can kill more people.

Lets face it, the time it takes a police team or "good guy gunner" to
react is sufficient to shoot a hell of a lot of people.

The Los Vegas reaction time was something over an hour, at least the
report I read said that the shooting started at 10:05 and "At 11:20
p.m., police breached Paddock's room with explosives." That is one
hour and 15 minutes. The U of T Tower shooting was about 2 hours. The
first shots were fired at about 11:20 and the shooter was killed at
about 13:24.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 10/16/2017 9:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/16/2017 8:13 PM, John B. wrote:
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.

Nice try at diversion, John.

Let me state my point as a direct question: Do you, John,
seriously think a short barrel, non-rifled, single shot,
crudely made zip gun is as accurate or as deadly as the
modern guns used by gangs today? A yes or no answer will do.

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.

It's easy for you to say purposely restricting firing rate
is a "wild eyed argument." It doesn't seem to be so easy for
you to explain why you believe that's true.

Let's try this question: What minimum firing rate do you
think is absolutely necessary in a privately owned firearm?
And why do you choose that number? Please give a definite
number and a rational reason.


Frank, for a disarmed and occupied population, even the
Liberator was wildly successful:
http://candrsenal.com/pistol-fp-45-liberator-pistol/

One in the back of a sentry's head gets you his MP40 and a
couple of sticks.

While there's no 'duct tape', it's just barely above most
zip guns I've seen. (made by a steel-stamp manufacturer of
headlight and turn signal housings)

It's not the hardware, any more than in bicycle racing.

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