New Tactical Cycling Maneuver

On Tuesday, September 29, 2020 at 5:45:30 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/28/2020 9:30 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/28/2020 11:12 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/28/2020 9:52 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/28/2020 8:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:

Mr Stoner designed the AR-15 specifically as a civilian
sporting arm, always and only, and so they remain down to
today.
"Civilian sporting arm." Please define that. What are its
defining features, and why are they different from (say) a
classic hunting rifle?



A 'classic' hunting rifle would be 'not the latest thing'

A good example of 'classic' would be Eugene Stoner's AR-15
from the 1950s for example.

You're avoiding the question.

Here are some highly rated hunting rifles:
https://www.fieldandstream.com/story...ing-big-woods/


https://squirrelhuntingjournal.com/t...rifles-budget/


I can link to more. But most "sportsmen" (the term hunters
often use for themselves) do not consider guns with combat
features to be the best tool for hunting. It thus seems
inaccurate at best to consider an AR to be a "civilian
sporting arm." Unless the "sport" is armed combat.


AR-15 has no giggle switch.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Kragowski hasn't the slightest idea what he is talking about but that has never stopped him in the past.

On Tuesday, September 29, 2020 at 9:11:14 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/29/2020 10:29 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 9/28/2020 5:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 9/28/2020 12:41 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 20:35:26 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Sunday, September 27, 2020 at 10:25:20 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 17:50:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
But as you know, I don't condemn all rifles. I'm very much in favor of
hunting. And I'll note yet again that hunters, target shooters, etc.
have no real need of a gun that fires more than five to ten rounds in a
minute.
But Frank, a legal AR-whatever fires one shot for each time the
trigger is pulled and Ed McGivern set a record on September 13, 1932,
shooting five rounds from a double-action revolver at 15 feet in 2/5
of a second. Note this was a .38 S&W Special, which was made in 1917.

John, you have so much trouble understanding my point, I suspect it
might be deliberate.

I know there are countless guns that fire faster than my proposed
limit. I know it's considered normal. But I'm saying it
shouldn't be for civilian use. The detriments to society far
outweigh the benefits - because, really, what are the
benefits to getting ten rounds shot in a minute?

Frank, it is obvious that you just don't know what you are talking
about with your "rounds per minute" theory.
Which I have been trying to tell you.

A Smith & Wesson revolver, first built in the late 1800's will fire
faster, I even referenced a record set in the 1930's with a pistol
made in 1917 that fired at a rate of 750 rounds per minute.

We've been through this before. I'm not talking about firing rates in
terms of how quickly you can pull a trigger six or eight times.

I'm talking about how many rounds can you fire within one
minute. Start a stopwatch, shoot away, and if you can fire more than
ten times (or hell, more than five times), there is no practical use
for that capability except to kill other human beings.

You persist in not understanding my point. You're a reasonably
intelligent guy, so your misunderstanding must be deliberate.

John's point is that a hypothetical firearms inspector armed with your
proposed law could fire *any* repeating firearm at an illegal rate, and
quite possibly some single shots as well. If your intent is to outlaw
all repeating firearms you should just say so, instead of beating around
the bush.

I know that's John's point. I'm introducing what I think is a new
point to the gun debates: More than (say) five or ten shots within one
minute is not really useful. On balance, that capability is
detrimental to society.

But it seemed that you were going beyond that, and advocating a *legal
ban* on firearms that *could potentially* fire more than (say) five or
ten shots within one minute. Doing so in a way that does not entail a
ban on literally any repeating firearm seems impossible.

I know many if not most guns can exceed that. I've shot handguns and
rifles that could, although I don't recall doing that myself. The best
I can say in favor of the capability is it could let you get a bit
more practice when target shooting.

Balance that against people bursting into a living room, church or
school and firing round after round at innocent people. Balance it
against rival groups of thugs shooting at each other in the night and
hitting other residents with stray shots, because they have so many
shots it doesn't matter to them if most go astray.

So you're in favor of gangsters and assassins making every shot count?

Should we ban such guns? How about only shooting rounds more deadly
than a garden variety 22LR? I think it would be a good idea, but
politically impossible.

*More* deadly? That is an interesting idea. Being shot by a .22LR is
nothing to sneeze at.
BTW, my phrasing was bad, although I think you understood my meaning. It
should have been "How about banning only those guns rapidly shooting
rounds more deadly than a garden variety 22LR?"
But to you and John: Please! I understand a 22 can kill, and I never
said otherwise. However, other rounds _are_ much more deadly, and are
much more frequently chosen when someone is intent on man-killing
capability. Do you really doubt that??

For target shooting or small game hunting, a 22 works fine. If you feel
you MUST have a gun that can shoot fast, I'd say buy a classic 22 rifle,
maybe with a tubular magazine. It's much less likely to get stolen and
sold to some street thug.
But I think people should think realistically about the real benefits
and detriments of certain common firearm capabilities.

Thinking is great. Turning that into laws that actually do what you
expect is hard.
I understand that. But it begins with the thinking.
You sure must be sad that we have a Constitution in this country that renders you helpless at your fascism.

On 9/29/2020 11:19 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/29/2020 8:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/28/2020 10:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/28/2020 5:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 9/28/2020 12:41 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 20:35:26 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Sunday, September 27, 2020 at 10:25:20 PM UTC-4,
John B. wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 17:50:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
But as you know, I don't condemn all rifles. I'm very
much in favor of
hunting. And I'll note yet again that hunters, target
shooters, etc.
have no real need of a gun that fires more than five
to ten rounds in a
minute.
But Frank, a legal AR-whatever fires one shot for each
time the
trigger is pulled and Ed McGivern set a record on
September 13, 1932,
shooting five rounds from a double-action revolver at
15 feet in 2/5
of a second. Note this was a .38 S&W Special, which
was made in 1917.

John, you have so much trouble understanding my point,
I suspect it
might be deliberate.

I know there are countless guns that fire faster than
my proposed
limit. I know it's considered normal. But I'm saying it
shouldn't be for civilian use. The detriments to
society far
outweigh the benefits - because, really, what are the
benefits to getting ten rounds shot in a minute?

Frank, it is obvious that you just don't know what you
are talking
about with your "rounds per minute" theory.
Which I have been trying to tell you.

A Smith & Wesson revolver, first built in the late
1800's will fire
faster, I even referenced a record set in the 1930's
with a pistol
made in 1917 that fired at a rate of 750 rounds per
minute.

We've been through this before. I'm not talking about
firing rates in
terms of how quickly you can pull a trigger six or eight
times.

I'm talking about how many rounds can you fire within one
minute. Start a stopwatch, shoot away, and if you can
fire more than
ten times (or hell, more than five times), there is no
practical use
for that capability except to kill other human beings.

You persist in not understanding my point. You're a
reasonably
intelligent guy, so your misunderstanding must be
deliberate.

John's point is that a hypothetical firearms inspector
armed with your
proposed law could fire *any* repeating firearm at an
illegal rate, and
quite possibly some single shots as well. If your intent
is to outlaw
all repeating firearms you should just say so, instead of
beating around
the bush.

I know that's John's point. I'm introducing what I think is
a new point to the gun debates: More than (say) five or ten
shots within one minute is not really useful. On balance,
that capability is detrimental to society.

I know many if not most guns can exceed that. I've shot
handguns and rifles that could, although I don't recall
doing that myself. The best I can say in favor of the
capability is it could let you get a bit more practice when
target shooting.

Balance that against people bursting into a living room,
church or school and firing round after round at innocent
people. Balance it against rival groups of thugs shooting at
each other in the night and hitting other residents with
stray shots, because they have so many shots it doesn't
matter to them if most go astray.

Should we ban such guns? How about only shooting rounds more
deadly than a garden variety 22LR? I think it would be a
good idea, but politically impossible.

But I think people should think realistically about the real
benefits and detriments of certain common firearm
capabilities.


So in your perfect world, when two guys 'burst into your
living room' your would simply ask the second one to
slowly count to twenty while your magic pistol software
resets itself:

https://abc7chicago.com/waukegan-new...mpted/6506524/

Great plan, Frank, but you put the others in your home at
risk that way.

The greatest risk of getting shot within one's home comes
from having a gun in that home. Home invasions don't come
close to comparing.

But if someone did attempt to break down your front door and
you had a slow-firing gun - um... on your hip? Or right
beside your reliner? (Really??) - what would happen if you
put one round through the door? Do you seriously think the
guy would keep kicking? What if you followed it up a second
later with another round? Then a third?

The only way that would not deter an invader would be if he
was carrying the type of guns I argue against. And the only
way such a person would be barging in would be you had a big
drug selling operation in your home, or perhaps had an
arsenal he wanted to steal.



We live in two different worlds it seems.

hint: No matter what law or rule you promulgate, criminals
will violate them. It's illegal to burglarize a house
already. What would you do _in the moment_? Sit down with
nice stationery and write a letter to the local paper?

Oh, and before you purchase a firearm, please take a
safety/technique course. Shooting at an unseen target
through a door is a Very Bad Idea. In some States, even
shooting the man who has not entered your home is a crime in
itself.

Do we have problems? Sure, all day long and everywhere. But
this is not in my view a hardware problem. You differ and so
here we are, living in different worlds.

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

On 9/29/2020 1:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/29/2020 11:19 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

The greatest risk of getting shot within one's home comes
from having a gun in that home. Home invasions don't come
close to comparing.

But if someone did attempt to break down your front door and
you had a slow-firing gun - um... on your hip? Or right
beside your reliner? (Really??) - what would happen if you
put one round through the door? Do you seriously think the
guy would keep kicking? What if you followed it up a second
later with another round? Then a third?

The only way that would not deter an invader would be if he
was carrying the type of guns I argue against. And the only
way such a person would be barging in would be you had a big
drug selling operation in your home, or perhaps had an
arsenal he wanted to steal.



We live in two different worlds it seems.

Perhaps my community is safer than yours. My statement about guns in the
home is based on national averages - that is, what's typical. Still, I
doubt you could find a place in the U.S. where gun deaths by home
invasions are more common than other gun deaths.

hint:Â* No matter what law or rule you promulgate, criminals will violate
them.

Andrew, you've made that statment over and over. You never explain what
you intend as your main point. Do you wish to abolish all laws?

Laws (or at least, enforced rules) are necessary for functioning
societies. They found this out even in places like Christiana in
Denmark, a supposed "free town." Cops don't enforce the drug laws there.
But citizens do enforce their own drug rules.

We need laws. They don't prevent all bad behavior, but they certainly
prevent a lot of it.

It's illegal to burglarize a house already.Â* What would you do _in
the moment_?Â* Sit down with nice stationery and write a letter to the
local paper?

If they burglarized my house? Please see this:
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...-burglary.html

If someone instead barged in to _rob_ us while we were here? The first
thing I'd say is "The only gun is in that corner. You can take it if you
really want it, but it's far from sexy. We don't have any drug and
almost no cash, so you've made a mistake. And I've already called 911."

I'm not going to bother fantasizing about a team of punks blasting their
way in through our door. That's as likely as a meteorite strike.

Oh, and before you purchase a firearm, please take a safety/technique
course. Shooting at an unseen target through a door is a Very Bad Idea.
In some States, even shooting the man who has not entered your home is a
crime in itself.

If that unlikely team of punks does try to blast their way into my
living room, I'll be sure to let them know they're violating the gun
safety rules! That'll stop them! ;-)


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, 24 September 2020 10:59:06 UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
https://nypost.com/2020/09/24/a-seat...s-head-during/

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

At the end of the day I'd far rather have a gun/rifle and not need it than need it and not have it.

I lived in Toronto Canada and once fired a blank cartridge out of a L1A1 rifle as six guys high on drugs were attacking to friends of mine on our front verandah. Those six saw the next round go into the chamber and were told that there were 29 more rounds in t hat magazine. The vamoosed rather quickly. The police finally showed up THIRTY MINUTES later. The police had been called BEFORE that blank was fired.

Btw, in t he army we got into BIG trouble if we called a rifle a gun. Guns are usually smooth bore unless it's an artillery piece.

Frank is as anti-multi rounds capacity firearms as he is anti-helmet. Nothing anyone can say will change his stance.

Cheers

On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 11:52:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/28/2020 11:58 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 22:30:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Here are some highly rated hunting rifles:
https://www.fieldandstream.com/story...ing-big-woods/

https://squirrelhuntingjournal.com/t...rifles-budget/

I can link to more. But most "sportsmen" (the term hunters often use for
themselves) do not consider guns with combat features to be the best
tool for hunting. It thus seems inaccurate at best to consider an AR to
be a "civilian sporting arm." Unless the "sport" is armed combat.

Well, I suppose that it depends on what "sportsmen" means. After all
the AR type firearm is extensively used in target shooting. Or aren't
target shooters considered sportsmen?

Come on, John. You said you shot competitively, right? If so, you know
about target shooting competitions.

Given a free choice of gun type, you can't pretend a high level
competitor would use an AR rifle in a match. It's the wrong tool for the
job.

https://www.snipercentral.com/ruger-...t-full-review/

https://www.browning.com/products/fi...es/x-bolt.html

There's lots of target shooting with ARs only because lots of guys think
ARs are cool, so that's what they buy. It's a fashion thing, as
senseless as most other fashion things.

Well, once again you hit the target.... well except that the target is
evidence that you don't know what you are talking about.

See: https://www.pewpewtactical.com/best-precision-ar15/
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/bu...residents-100/

They are very commonly used in matches that specify "service rifle"
and apparently have been since the 1950's and 1960's, see
https://thecmp.org/2016-cmp-rifle-an...-rule-changes/

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 12:01:30 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/29/2020 12:13 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 22:33:48 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/28/2020 7:18 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 10:52:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/28/2020 8:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:

Mr Stoner designed the AR-15 specifically as a civilian sporting arm,
always and only, and so they remain down to today.
"Civilian sporting arm." Please define that. What are its defining
features, and why are they different from (say) a classic hunting rifle?


But what is "classic"? Here is a number of photos of what were
considered as "classic" in years gone by.
http://micksguns.com/antique-muzzle-loading-long-guns/

And yes, you are going to say, "That's not what I meant" but they were
all "classic" in their time. The point is that "classic" is not a
specific ideal, it changes with the times.

Actually, I have two friends who hunt using similar guns. They somehow
take deer, coyotes etc. without having to blast off a dozen shots within
a minute.

Who _does_ need to fire more than a couple shots within a minute? Why?

I thought, when I advised you that practically every gun made will
fire faster then 10 - 15 rounds a minute, you argued that wasn't what
you were talking about and here you go again talking about firing
rates.

No, sorry, you're remembering wrong. Or perhaps still confused.

You were fixating on instantaneous firing rate - like a guy with a six
shot revolver who can pull the trigger six times in three seconds. You
were saying "See? That would be 120 rounds per minute!" My response was
that it would NOT be 120 rounds _in_ one minute. For anyone who hadn't
practiced like crazy, reloading would consume most of the minute.

So who _does_ really need to fire more than a couple shots within a
minute? Who _does_ really need to fire more than five to ten shots in a
minute?


By the way, you might want to look at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJMbxZ1k9NQ
it shows a chap with a flintlock Brown Bess musket that went into
service in the English army in 1722 firing 3 shots in 46 seconds.

I've seen that sort of demonstration live. So is that your answer? "The
person who needs to shoot lots of shots in one minute is a soldier
trying to kill other soldiers."

If so, I agree! But Walter "Rambo" Mitty who plays combat games on his
mom's computer doesn't need that capability in real life. And providing
it is detrimental to society.

Frank, you really should stop replying as time after time your
responses demonstrate that you know nothing about the subject.

Most, I'd almost say all, modern firearms today will fire more then
your mythical 10 - 15 rounds in one minute and I've posted references
to them. some even with moving pictures.
But to add to the pot here is an example of a bloke firing a revolver:
https://www.personaldefenseworld.com...-record-video/
Using the Smith and Wesson 929 Miculek Series Revolver, he fired off
16 rounds with a reload in 4.01 seconds.

Now, of course, you move the goal posts again and say "need to..." and
I can assure you that shooting "doubles" at trap or skeet you need to
be able to fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. And, while I've
not experienced it personally, I have read instances where it was
vitally necessary for an individual hunting dangerious game to be able
to empty his gun-in seconds. A lion can run ~74 feet, say 25 yards in
one second.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 11:04:57 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Thursday, 24 September 2020 10:59:06 UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
https://nypost.com/2020/09/24/a-seat...s-head-during/

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

At the end of the day I'd far rather have a gun/rifle and not need it than need it and not have it.

I lived in Toronto Canada and once fired a blank cartridge out of a L1A1 rifle as six guys high on drugs were attacking to friends of mine on our front verandah. Those six saw the next round go into the chamber and were told that there were 29 more rounds in t hat magazine. The vamoosed rather quickly. The police finally showed up THIRTY MINUTES later. The police had been called BEFORE that blank was fired.

During one of the riots in Jakarta I watched a group of rioters
approaching an intersection where one policeman was standing. The cop
waved his arms and shouted and the mob kept coming. He pulled out his
pistol and fired one shot, noticeably into the air, and the mod turned
tail and ran.

Btw, in t he army we got into BIG trouble if we called a rifle a gun. Guns are usually smooth bore unless it's an artillery piece.

This is my rifle and this my gun. This is for killing and this is for
fun.

Frank is as anti-multi rounds capacity firearms as he is anti-helmet. Nothing anyone can say will change his stance.

Cheers
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 9/29/2020 9:23 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 11:04:57 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Thursday, 24 September 2020 10:59:06 UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
https://nypost.com/2020/09/24/a-seat...s-head-during/

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

At the end of the day I'd far rather have a gun/rifle and not need it than need it and not have it.

I lived in Toronto Canada and once fired a blank cartridge out of a L1A1 rifle as six guys high on drugs were attacking to friends of mine on our front verandah. Those six saw the next round go into the chamber and were told that there were 29 more rounds in t hat magazine. The vamoosed rather quickly. The police finally showed up THIRTY MINUTES later. The police had been called BEFORE that blank was fired.

During one of the riots in Jakarta I watched a group of rioters
approaching an intersection where one policeman was standing. The cop
waved his arms and shouted and the mob kept coming. He pulled out his
pistol and fired one shot, noticeably into the air, and the mod turned
tail and ran.

So you each gave an example where only one shot (even a blank!) was
needed to turn away multiple bad guys. That's actually pretty typical.

You don't need to be able to blast off a dozen rounds in a minute.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 22:02:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/29/2020 9:23 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 11:04:57 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Thursday, 24 September 2020 10:59:06 UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
https://nypost.com/2020/09/24/a-seat...s-head-during/

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

At the end of the day I'd far rather have a gun/rifle and not need it than need it and not have it.

I lived in Toronto Canada and once fired a blank cartridge out of a L1A1 rifle as six guys high on drugs were attacking to friends of mine on our front verandah. Those six saw the next round go into the chamber and were told that there were 29 more rounds in t hat magazine. The vamoosed rather quickly. The police finally showed up THIRTY MINUTES later. The police had been called BEFORE that blank was fired.

During one of the riots in Jakarta I watched a group of rioters
approaching an intersection where one policeman was standing. The cop
waved his arms and shouted and the mob kept coming. He pulled out his
pistol and fired one shot, noticeably into the air, and the mod turned
tail and ran.

So you each gave an example where only one shot (even a blank!) was
needed to turn away multiple bad guys. That's actually pretty typical.

Your term "needed" a bit misleading as in other instances of the riots
it was necessary to fire many shots.

You don't need to be able to blast off a dozen rounds in a minute.

I asked you before and you declined to reply. What sort of firearm do
you have in mind that is impossible to fire "a dozen rounds a minute".

Perhaps if we outlaw all cartridge firing weapons and go back to
muzzle loading muskets. The British army, during the Napoleonic wars,
was only capable of firing 3 shots a minute in sustained volley
firing.
--
Cheers,

John B.