Build it and they won't come

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 07:45:27 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 11:07:54 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:

Slow! See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_a7pXWi6xo

You notice there's no target there. Spraying bullets all over the place doesn't have enough effect. I was told that on D-Day landings there wasn't enough rifles to go around and the second wave had the older bolt action rifles and a very limited number of rounds so that they would AIM for effect.

History of Operations research in the U.S. Army, Volume I, 1942 - 1962
http://tinyurl.com/ybac5t75

Strange as it may seem the U.S. Army does make studies to attempt to
determine the effectiveness of various weapons and squad level
weapons, rifles, produce in the neighborhood of 2 - 5% of enemy
casualties. In addition, aimed rifle fire seems to be no more
effective in producing casualties then un aimed volume of fire and
that most casualties were at less then 100 yard range.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 10/13/2017 6:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2017 4:57 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/13/2017 3:23 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2017 12:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/13/2017 11:39 AM, 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been amended and even repealed.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?


Similar to optimal 'gun control' which is, 'all ten inside
the little circle'.

So part of a well regulated militia could be a drug selling
punk who's practiced a lot? I doubt that's what the founders
envisioned.

An effective citizen militia are able bodied armed men
with experience, skill and their own ball & powder.

How about discipline, self control and a respect for the
orders of their superior officers?

I (and many others) think it's very likely the founders
envisioned something like the national guard or the military
reserves. I doubt very much that they would approve of nut
cases wanting to secede from the federal government, or
crazies shooting kids and other citizens in churches,
schools or concerts. I strongly suspect that in the current
context, they'd think it was a good idea to do background
checks and keep suspected terrorists from buying high
powered guns. And I suspect they'd be willing to control the
ownership of mass murder tools, whether they were bombs or
guns. Most other Americans seem to agree.

The practice at the time was to select officers by
election.

Fine. Make that happen in the National Guard, and pass a law
that if a person wants to play with people-killing tools,
they have to join the Guard and periodically report for
intense training.


So part of a well regulated militia could be a drug
selling
punk who's practiced a lot? I doubt that's what the
founders
envisioned.

Well, there's crime and there's crime.

In the unlikely event that something like Mumbai happened
in your neighborhood, he may well be more valuable than an
unarmed traffic warden or a retired academic telephoning
911. We spoke of France earlier- Even a French street
thug may well have saved lives at Bataclan but, again,
there was no immediate armed response to foreign invaders
vs civilians.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...st-attack.html


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ms-escape.html


I'm not defending career criminals or felons in possession
(who ignore all the 'sensible' rules now) but even they
may well defend their family and neighborhood in extreme
events.

"When seconds count, 911 will be there in about 20 minutes"

I just wonder why a "good guy with a gun" didn't immediately
save the day in Las Vegas. Hell, it was a country music
concert in a state with very few gun laws!

I also wonder where the "good guy with a gun" was at that
baseball practice outside D.C.

And in Orlando.

Oh, and in San Bernadino.

And at that college in Oregon.

And that church in Charleston.

And at Sandy Hook. And so on.

Where are all these members of the "well regulated militia"?
What happens to the God fearing, gun toting heroes when the
lead actually starts flying? Why are they failing us over
and over?

Hint: I can quickly think of four people I know who
definitely carry handguns all the time. And I do mean all
the time. Some of them are rather nice people, at least one
is ex-military, but each one is a paranoid coward. And I'm
choosing those words very carefully.

I think all of them would pee their pants if a situation
arose where they might really need to shoot. At least two of
them would be dumb enough to shoot an innocent person
instead of a bad guy. They're a far cry from the cops and
agents I know, let alone from the heroes they imagine they
might be.


There's one in the national news every other day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RoPL-l0_bo

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

On 10/13/2017 9:30 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 07:45:27 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 11:07:54 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:

Slow! See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_a7pXWi6xo

You notice there's no target there. Spraying bullets all over the place doesn't have enough effect. I was told that on D-Day landings there wasn't enough rifles to go around and the second wave had the older bolt action rifles and a very limited number of rounds so that they would AIM for effect.

History of Operations research in the U.S. Army, Volume I, 1942 - 1962
http://tinyurl.com/ybac5t75

Strange as it may seem the U.S. Army does make studies to attempt to
determine the effectiveness of various weapons and squad level
weapons, rifles, produce in the neighborhood of 2 - 5% of enemy
casualties. In addition, aimed rifle fire seems to be no more
effective in producing casualties then un aimed volume of fire and
that most casualties were at less then 100 yard range.
--
Cheers,

John B.


As in bicycle racing, the exceptional actor is not your
average guy:

https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...sniper+taliban

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

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 11:13:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/13/2017 2:16 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 00:46:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

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:
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.

I'm not saying it's impossible to do what you claim. I'm saying it
shouldn't be legal. Why would you want to do that anyway? Is it just in
case a gaggle of U.S.ian gun nuts charges over the border to the north?


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.

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.

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.

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.

And let's remember that "the [American] right to bear arms" was written
when nobody conceived of a gun that could accurately fire three rounds
in a minute.

Actually you are wrong. See
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJMbxZ1k9NQ
3 rounds in 46 seconds or about 3.91 rounds per minute.

I've seen that video before, and had it in mind when I wrote. It's why I
included the word "accurately," which you missed.

The guy's first two shots were in the right general direction, but I
doubt they were "accurate." The third shot? There's no telling where it
went. The stock wasn't even against his shoulder when he fired.

Ah, but the weapon shown was a black powder unrifled musket and was
known to be not accurate at all, in fact no sights were fitted on the
1722 "Brown Bess" musket.

http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napole...ycombatmuskets
"In another test out of 720 French infantry, 52 hit the target of 3m x
100 m. At 200 m there were only 18 hits"

- According to R. Henegan the British infantry at Vittoria fired on
average 459 rounds for 1 French casualty. (Henegan - "Seven Years'
Campaigning in the Peninsula and the Netherlands", pp 344-345)
Secondly, after the first volley there was so much smoke that the
target was invisible.

Napier witnessed volleys fired by British infantry (in Spain) where
out of 300 musketballs fired none hit the target.

- At Vittoria, the British infantry had on average 1 hit in 459 shots
fired. I assume that the ratio for French infantry was lower, as they
had much less training.

In fact, the more or less standard British infantry tactic was to
advance to very close range, fire a volley and charge with the
bayonet.

http://tinyurl.com/ycw9ye92
"When they had approached to within 300 or 400 yards, the French
poured in a volley or I should say a running fire from right to left.
As soon as the British regiment had recovered the first shock, and
closed their fles on the gap it had made, they commenced advancing at
double time until within 50 yards nearer to the enemy, when they
halted and in turn gave a running fire from their whole line, and
without a moment's pause cheered and charged up the hill against them.
The French meanwhile were attempting to reload. But being hard pressed
by the British, who allowed them no time to give a second volley, came
immediately to the right about, making the best of their way to the
village." (Costello - "The Peninsular and Waterloo Campaigns" p 125)

--
Cheers,

John B.

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.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 10/13/2017 10:55 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/13/2017 6:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2017 4:57 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/13/2017 3:23 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2017 12:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/13/2017 11:39 AM, 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.ÂÂ* 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.ÂÂ* 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?


Similar to optimal 'gun control' which is, 'all ten inside
the little circle'.

So part of a well regulated militia could be a drug selling
punk who's practiced a lot? I doubt that's what the founders
envisioned.

An effective citizen militia are able bodied armed men
with experience, skill and their own ball & powder.

How about discipline, self control and a respect for the
orders of their superior officers?

I (and many others) think it's very likely the founders
envisioned something like the national guard or the military
reserves. I doubt very much that they would approve of nut
cases wanting to secede from the federal government, or
crazies shooting kids and other citizens in churches,
schools or concerts. I strongly suspect that in the current
context, they'd think it was a good idea to do background
checks and keep suspected terrorists from buying high
powered guns. And I suspect they'd be willing to control the
ownership of mass murder tools, whether they were bombs or
guns. Most other Americans seem to agree.

The practice at the time was to select officers by
election.

Fine. Make that happen in the National Guard, and pass a law
that if a person wants to play with people-killing tools,
they have to join the Guard and periodically report for
intense training.


* So part of a well regulated militia could be a drug
selling
* punk who's practiced a lot? I doubt that's what the
founders
* envisioned.

Well, there's crime and there's crime.

In the unlikely event that something like Mumbai happened
in your neighborhood, he may well be more valuable than an
unarmed traffic warden or a retired academic telephoning
911.* We spoke of France earlier- Even a French street
thug may well have saved lives at Bataclan but, again,
there was no immediate armed response to foreign invaders
vs civilians.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...st-attack.html



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ms-escape.html



I'm not defending career criminals or felons in possession
(who ignore all the 'sensible' rules now) but even they
may well defend their family and neighborhood in extreme
events.

"When seconds count, 911 will be there in about 20 minutes"

I just wonder why a "good guy with a gun" didn't immediately
save the day in Las Vegas. Hell, it was a country music
concert in a state with very few gun laws!

I also wonder where the "good guy with a gun" was at that
baseball practice outside D.C.

And in Orlando.

Oh, and in San Bernadino.

And at that college in Oregon.

And that church in Charleston.

And at Sandy Hook.* And so on.

Where are all these members of the "well regulated militia"?
What happens to the God fearing, gun toting heroes when the
lead actually starts flying? Why are they failing us over
and over?

Hint: I can quickly think of four people I know who
definitely carry handguns all the time. And I do mean all
the time. Some of them are rather nice people, at least one
is ex-military, but each one is a paranoid coward.* And I'm
choosing those words very carefully.

I think all of them would pee their pants if a situation
arose where they might really need to shoot. At least two of
them would be dumb enough to shoot an innocent person
instead of a bad guy. They're a far cry from the cops and
agents I know, let alone from the heroes they imagine they
might be.


There's one in the national news every other day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RoPL-l0_bo

So that's the solution? A pistol in every pocket? "Wild West" shootouts
daily?

I'd prefer the Canadian solution. It means handguns are very rarely
carried by the bad guys; therefore the good guys don't have to carry
handguns.

--
- Frank Krygowski

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.


--
Cheers,

John B.

On 10/13/2017 10:30 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 07:45:27 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 11:07:54 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:

Slow! See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_a7pXWi6xo

You notice there's no target there. Spraying bullets all over the place doesn't have enough effect. I was told that on D-Day landings there wasn't enough rifles to go around and the second wave had the older bolt action rifles and a very limited number of rounds so that they would AIM for effect.

History of Operations research in the U.S. Army, Volume I, 1942 - 1962
http://tinyurl.com/ybac5t75

Strange as it may seem the U.S. Army does make studies to attempt to
determine the effectiveness of various weapons and squad level
weapons, rifles, produce in the neighborhood of 2 - 5% of enemy
casualties. In addition, aimed rifle fire seems to be no more
effective in producing casualties then un aimed volume of fire and
that most casualties were at less then 100 yard range.

Wait - you mean the Army uses data???

Those guys who already know everything might be disappointed! :-)


--
- Frank Krygowski

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.

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.

--
- Frank Krygowski

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

--
Cheers,

John B.