Really, really dumb

On 1/14/2020 9:13 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:

The Ruger 10/22 is a nice, practical choice. I bought one myself.
I'm guessing you mention it specifically because you have one or have
used one.

But. It's a semi-automatic weapon. The standard magazine is 10 rounds,
but larger ones are readily available. It does take a much less
powerful cartridge than the AR-15, but, really, it works just the same,
at least from the operator's perspective. Ruger also makes the mini-14,
which is a semi-auto chambered in .223, like the AR-15, but with wood
furniture and no carry handle on top.

Now, you could have chosen any of a multitude of rifles with falling
block, bolt, or pump action, but for *some* reason you chose the 10/22.
Why? Didn't you consider that you and yours might be irrestibly tempted
to hose down the Ohio countryside with semi-auto fire?

I've shot a Ruger 10/22, and liked it well enough to vaguely consider
buying one, but I didn't buy one. Fact is, I just don't need one.

I had a Marlin 60, a semi-auto with a tubular magazine. Why? Because it
was an antique (or nearly so) passed down to me from an older family
member who had died. I used it for a while for target shooting, then I
passed it on to a younger member of the family.

Wait. You might have left the evil magazine at home, or thrown it in
the trash, and loaded the rifle by hand, single shot. Easy enough if
your fingers are small. Enquiring minds want to know.

I suppose I could have modified the gun so the magazine held fewer
rounds, but why bother? The pertinent point is, I never (with that gun
or any other) shot rapidly. I never needed to shoot rapidly. Shooting
squirrels, for example, I've never shot more than twice within ten
seconds. "Pow pow pow pow" is only for playing "macho man."

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, 14 January 2020 11:51:25 UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/13/2020 11:30 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 22:17:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 1/13/2020 8:10 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:31:49 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:


You mentioned bows and arrows. But the bows sold in sporting goods
stores near me were never designed with homicide or armed combat in
mind. The AR-15 absolutely was.

Why do you say that?

Because it's absolutely true. Anyone can look up the history of the
gun's development and see what the design objectives were. They can look
at the early sales (or procurement) history to confirm things.

Do you imagine that modern self bows and arrows
are significantly different from the war bows and arrows of, oh say,
the battle of Crecy?

John, you're picking at nits in an unsuccessful attempt at distraction..
Before Crecy (and probably after) armies also used stones as weapons.
(Look up the historic military use of slings.) But we've never had
modern mass murders committed by people using slings or arrows. Those
weapons are irrelevant.

The AR-15 type was absolutely designed as a people killer, and it's been
used that way by criminals and nut cases with distressing regularity.
Its combat features are not needed for normal hunting, for shooting of
pest animals, for target shooting or for legitimate self defense.

But Frank, the latest "mass killing" at the wasn't a AR-15 type.... it
was a Glock 9 pistol as carried by many police officers. The shootings
at the Washington Navy Yard shootings in 2013 was with a Remington 870
shotgun.

I think that you are witch hunting, After all the AR-15 is a
semi-automatic rifle and the first semi-automatic rifle produced and
sold in the U.S. was the Remington Model 8 which went on sale in 1905.

One conter-example doesn't change the facts. You're squirming away from
my main point. The AR-15 was designed for killing people, not for any
other practical use like hunting or target shooting. It retains the
features that make it an efficient people killer but confer no other
benefit. It's not needed by sane gun users without a Rambo fetish.

What's next? The 20 round magazine? But I have already explained that
the Henry, from way back when, held 16 cartridges and as you haven't
ranted about that I can only assume that you don't oppose large
magazines.

Your memory is short. In the past, I've said there is no reason for
non-military guns to have a rapid fire capability. I stand by that.
Competent hunters don't fire in bursts. That capability is not needed
for self defense, and the only target shooters who do that are the Rambo
wannabees. Save the "pow pow pow pow pow pow pow" experience for
military combat - and if you insist, stupid video games. (Although I'll
note the Mexican kid that triggered this thread was into those stupid
games.)

It is probably also pertinent to mention that mass shootings from 1982
to 1919 have overwhelmingly been carried out with pistols .

Right. I'm in favor of Canada's policies on handguns.

BTW, Sir Ridesalot never answered my question. How are things going in
your city, given Canada's rational gun control laws? Are you able to
somehow get by despite those laws? Or perhaps because of them?

See
https://www.nationalobserver.com/201...ompare-canadas

--
- Frank Krygowski

Wll, in Toronto, Canada it seems that only the criminals have the handguns. At least it's the criminals using them that I hear and read about.

I really hated it back in the 1980s when they came out with the Firearms Acquisition Certificate crap and then arbitrarily banned all long guns with a barrel length less than a certain length. Overnight my Lee Enfield No. V Jungle Carbine, my M1 Carbine with Infra-red scope and a few other rifles were illegal once a certain date passed. Those rifles and carbines were bought fully legally according to the law at the time.

Another interesting thing happened during the flooding in High River. The RCMP took a number of rifles from homes. Interestingly enough it was only the homes where the rifles had been registered that lost them.

I am very sorry that I sold my carbines and other rifles instead of just hiding them and keeping quiet that I still owned them.

Cheers

On Tuesday, 14 January 2020 22:36:21 UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/14/2020 10:13 PM, AMuzi wrote:

Here's the world in which we actually live:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...ta-table-8.xls


Note edged weapons beat rifles 5 to 1.

Only if you ignore the vast unknown "type not stated."


--
- Frank Krygowski

So you're saying that the "vast unknown type note stated" were all or mostly firearm related? As you often demand, where's your proof of that?

Cheers

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 22:27:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/14/2020 9:14 PM, jbeattie wrote:

I own guns, including vintage steel guns and spent a lot of time shooting with friends when I was a kid. I had a gun lunatic friend as well as a SWAT officer friend and shot a lot of crazy guns. AR-15s are cool transformer guns and real hobby items. I get it. I just don't view them as religious icons. They should be subject to regulation like every other device used for killing each other, like cars.

And the "religious icons" bit is a big art of the problem. To a sad
number of gun nuts, any mention of any restriction on any type of gun or
ammo is blasphemy. It's not based on data or reason or science or logic.

Gee, it sounds just like the anti-gun fraternity who want to outlaw
the AR-15 because it looks like an assault rifle.

I once had a gun nut go almost apoplectic in my office, because he
spotted an 8.5" x 11" poster that said something about gun control. It
took several seconds before he could form a complete sentence. He was
like a fundamentalist Christian spotting a Satan worship handbook.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 21:13:17 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/14/2020 8:13 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

[...]

There are many guns optimized for more civilized uses - shotguns
optimized for hunting birds, long range hunting rifles for elk at 1000
yards, ordinary hunting rifles (like a Ruger 10/22 for example),
competition target rifles, ordinary 0.22s that are good at tin cans,
etc.

The Ruger 10/22 is a nice, practical choice. I bought one myself.
I'm guessing you mention it specifically because you have one or have
used one.

But. It's a semi-automatic weapon. The standard magazine is 10 rounds,
but larger ones are readily available. It does take a much less
powerful cartridge than the AR-15, but, really, it works just the same,
at least from the operator's perspective. Ruger also makes the mini-14,
which is a semi-auto chambered in .223, like the AR-15, but with wood
furniture and no carry handle on top.

Now, you could have chosen any of a multitude of rifles with falling
block, bolt, or pump action, but for *some* reason you chose the 10/22.
Why? Didn't you consider that you and yours might be irrestibly tempted
to hose down the Ohio countryside with semi-auto fire?

Wait. You might have left the evil magazine at home, or thrown it in
the trash, and loaded the rifle by hand, single shot. Easy enough if
your fingers are small. Enquiring minds want to know.


Here's the world in which we actually live:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...ta-table-8.xls

Note edged weapons beat rifles 5 to 1.

Given Frank's battle-cry "ban the AR-15" it is interesting to see that
some 297 murders were commented with rifles, or in other words could
have been commented with an AR-15, amounted to 2.8% of the total
firearm deaths while those commented with hand guns, i.e., pistols,
which Frank never mentions amounted to 64%.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 8:45:09 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 22:27:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/14/2020 9:14 PM, jbeattie wrote:

I own guns, including vintage steel guns and spent a lot of time shooting with friends when I was a kid. I had a gun lunatic friend as well as a SWAT officer friend and shot a lot of crazy guns. AR-15s are cool transformer guns and real hobby items. I get it. I just don't view them as religious icons. They should be subject to regulation like every other device used for killing each other, like cars.

And the "religious icons" bit is a big art of the problem. To a sad
number of gun nuts, any mention of any restriction on any type of gun or
ammo is blasphemy. It's not based on data or reason or science or logic.

Gee, it sounds just like the anti-gun fraternity who want to outlaw
the AR-15 because it looks like an assault rifle.

No, its just not a sacred cow. We regulate studded tires but not guns? We can, as a nation, decide based on accurate information, that certain firearms pose an unreasonable risk to the general population. The founding fathers contemplated private ownership of flintlocks for use in well regulated militias and did not foreclose the regulation of easily modifiable, high capacity, rapid firing carbines favored by lunatic mall shooters. Legitimate, law-abiding AR15 owners take a little hit with smaller mags, and maybe a few people at Cinnabon get away while crazy guy is reloading. It seems like a reasonable trade-off.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 20:22:25 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Tuesday, 14 January 2020 11:51:25 UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/13/2020 11:30 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 22:17:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 1/13/2020 8:10 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:31:49 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:


You mentioned bows and arrows. But the bows sold in sporting goods
stores near me were never designed with homicide or armed combat in
mind. The AR-15 absolutely was.

Why do you say that?

Because it's absolutely true. Anyone can look up the history of the
gun's development and see what the design objectives were. They can look
at the early sales (or procurement) history to confirm things.

Do you imagine that modern self bows and arrows
are significantly different from the war bows and arrows of, oh say,
the battle of Crecy?

John, you're picking at nits in an unsuccessful attempt at distraction.
Before Crecy (and probably after) armies also used stones as weapons.
(Look up the historic military use of slings.) But we've never had
modern mass murders committed by people using slings or arrows. Those
weapons are irrelevant.

The AR-15 type was absolutely designed as a people killer, and it's been
used that way by criminals and nut cases with distressing regularity.
Its combat features are not needed for normal hunting, for shooting of
pest animals, for target shooting or for legitimate self defense.

But Frank, the latest "mass killing" at the wasn't a AR-15 type.... it
was a Glock 9 pistol as carried by many police officers. The shootings
at the Washington Navy Yard shootings in 2013 was with a Remington 870
shotgun.

I think that you are witch hunting, After all the AR-15 is a
semi-automatic rifle and the first semi-automatic rifle produced and
sold in the U.S. was the Remington Model 8 which went on sale in 1905.

One conter-example doesn't change the facts. You're squirming away from
my main point. The AR-15 was designed for killing people, not for any
other practical use like hunting or target shooting. It retains the
features that make it an efficient people killer but confer no other
benefit. It's not needed by sane gun users without a Rambo fetish.

What's next? The 20 round magazine? But I have already explained that
the Henry, from way back when, held 16 cartridges and as you haven't
ranted about that I can only assume that you don't oppose large
magazines.

Your memory is short. In the past, I've said there is no reason for
non-military guns to have a rapid fire capability. I stand by that.
Competent hunters don't fire in bursts. That capability is not needed
for self defense, and the only target shooters who do that are the Rambo
wannabees. Save the "pow pow pow pow pow pow pow" experience for
military combat - and if you insist, stupid video games. (Although I'll
note the Mexican kid that triggered this thread was into those stupid
games.)

It is probably also pertinent to mention that mass shootings from 1982
to 1919 have overwhelmingly been carried out with pistols .

Right. I'm in favor of Canada's policies on handguns.

BTW, Sir Ridesalot never answered my question. How are things going in
your city, given Canada's rational gun control laws? Are you able to
somehow get by despite those laws? Or perhaps because of them?

See
https://www.nationalobserver.com/201...ompare-canadas

--
- Frank Krygowski

Wll, in Toronto, Canada it seems that only the criminals have the handguns. At least it's the criminals using them that I hear and read about.

I really hated it back in the 1980s when they came out with the Firearms Acquisition Certificate crap and then arbitrarily banned all long guns with a barrel length less than a certain length. Overnight my Lee Enfield No. V Jungle Carbine, my M1 Carbine with Infra-red scope and a few other rifles were illegal once a certain date passed. Those rifles and carbines were bought fully legally according to the law at the time.

Another interesting thing happened during the flooding in High River. The RCMP took a number of rifles from homes. Interestingly enough it was only the homes where the rifles had been registered that lost them.

I am very sorry that I sold my carbines and other rifles instead of just hiding them and keeping quiet that I still owned them.

Cheers

Out of curiosity what is the minimum barrel length and can that
include a muzzle brake? In the U.S. I believe it is 16 inches (I
somehow think it used to be 18 inches?). I ask as I once acquired a
small ring mauser carbine that had a short barrel and made a muzzle
brake and silver soldered it onto the barrel and while I never asked
the tax people it was acceptable in the trade as it was non removable.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 21:27:19 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 8:45:09 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 22:27:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/14/2020 9:14 PM, jbeattie wrote:

I own guns, including vintage steel guns and spent a lot of time shooting with friends when I was a kid. I had a gun lunatic friend as well as a SWAT officer friend and shot a lot of crazy guns. AR-15s are cool transformer guns and real hobby items. I get it. I just don't view them as religious icons. They should be subject to regulation like every other device used for killing each other, like cars.

And the "religious icons" bit is a big art of the problem. To a sad
number of gun nuts, any mention of any restriction on any type of gun or
ammo is blasphemy. It's not based on data or reason or science or logic.

Gee, it sounds just like the anti-gun fraternity who want to outlaw
the AR-15 because it looks like an assault rifle.

No, its just not a sacred cow. We regulate studded tires but not guns? We can, as a nation, decide based on accurate information, that certain firearms pose an unreasonable risk to the general population. The founding fathers contemplated private ownership of flintlocks for use in well regulated militias and did not foreclose the regulation of easily modifiable, high capacity, rapid firing carbines favored by lunatic mall shooters. Legitimate, law-abiding AR15 owners take a little hit with smaller mags, and maybe a few people at Cinnabon get away while crazy guy is reloading. It seems like a reasonable trade-off.

-- Jay Beattie.

A number of states currently have laws that regulate the possession of
fire arms based on specific physical shape, size, attachments, etc.
For example: Connecticut defines and bans weapons as follows -

Any "selective-fire" firearm capable of fully automatic,
semi-automatic or "burst fire" at the option of the user;
Any semi-automatic centerfire rifle, regardless of the date produced,
that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least
one of the following features: 1) A folding or telescoping stock; 2)
Any grip of the weapon, including a pistol grip, thumbhole stock, or
other stock that would allow an individual to grip the weapon,
resulting in any finger on the trigger hand in addition to the trigger
finger being directly below any portion of the action of the weapon
when firing; 3) A forward pistol grip; 4) A flash suppressor; or 5) A
grenade or flare launcher;

or
A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has: 1) a fixed magazine that
can accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition; or 2) an overall length
of less than 30 inches;

note: there are other conditions which I did not include due to space.
See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assaul..._States#1 989

I have no idea whether this law has been tested in the court but I
believe that it is presently enforced in the state. And I read that
the Maryland's law was upheld in the courts:

The United States Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to the
Maryland ban in November 2017. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th
Circuit in Richmond had upheld the ban, stating that: "[A]ssault
weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second
Amendment." Attorneys general in 21 states and the NRA had asked the
Supreme Court to hear the case.[38]

--
cheers,

John B.

On Wednesday, 15 January 2020 00:30:59 UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 20:22:25 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Tuesday, 14 January 2020 11:51:25 UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/13/2020 11:30 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 22:17:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 1/13/2020 8:10 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:31:49 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:


You mentioned bows and arrows. But the bows sold in sporting goods
stores near me were never designed with homicide or armed combat in
mind. The AR-15 absolutely was.

Why do you say that?

Because it's absolutely true. Anyone can look up the history of the
gun's development and see what the design objectives were. They can look
at the early sales (or procurement) history to confirm things.

Do you imagine that modern self bows and arrows
are significantly different from the war bows and arrows of, oh say,
the battle of Crecy?

John, you're picking at nits in an unsuccessful attempt at distraction.
Before Crecy (and probably after) armies also used stones as weapons.
(Look up the historic military use of slings.) But we've never had
modern mass murders committed by people using slings or arrows. Those
weapons are irrelevant.

The AR-15 type was absolutely designed as a people killer, and it's been
used that way by criminals and nut cases with distressing regularity.
Its combat features are not needed for normal hunting, for shooting of
pest animals, for target shooting or for legitimate self defense.

But Frank, the latest "mass killing" at the wasn't a AR-15 type.... it
was a Glock 9 pistol as carried by many police officers. The shootings
at the Washington Navy Yard shootings in 2013 was with a Remington 870
shotgun.

I think that you are witch hunting, After all the AR-15 is a
semi-automatic rifle and the first semi-automatic rifle produced and
sold in the U.S. was the Remington Model 8 which went on sale in 1905.

One conter-example doesn't change the facts. You're squirming away from
my main point. The AR-15 was designed for killing people, not for any
other practical use like hunting or target shooting. It retains the
features that make it an efficient people killer but confer no other
benefit. It's not needed by sane gun users without a Rambo fetish.

What's next? The 20 round magazine? But I have already explained that
the Henry, from way back when, held 16 cartridges and as you haven't
ranted about that I can only assume that you don't oppose large
magazines.

Your memory is short. In the past, I've said there is no reason for
non-military guns to have a rapid fire capability. I stand by that.
Competent hunters don't fire in bursts. That capability is not needed
for self defense, and the only target shooters who do that are the Rambo
wannabees. Save the "pow pow pow pow pow pow pow" experience for
military combat - and if you insist, stupid video games. (Although I'll
note the Mexican kid that triggered this thread was into those stupid
games.)

It is probably also pertinent to mention that mass shootings from 1982
to 1919 have overwhelmingly been carried out with pistols .

Right. I'm in favor of Canada's policies on handguns.

BTW, Sir Ridesalot never answered my question. How are things going in
your city, given Canada's rational gun control laws? Are you able to
somehow get by despite those laws? Or perhaps because of them?

See
https://www.nationalobserver.com/201...ompare-canadas

--
- Frank Krygowski

Wll, in Toronto, Canada it seems that only the criminals have the handguns. At least it's the criminals using them that I hear and read about.

I really hated it back in the 1980s when they came out with the Firearms Acquisition Certificate crap and then arbitrarily banned all long guns with a barrel length less than a certain length. Overnight my Lee Enfield No. V Jungle Carbine, my M1 Carbine with Infra-red scope and a few other rifles were illegal once a certain date passed. Those rifles and carbines were bought fully legally according to the law at the time.

Another interesting thing happened during the flooding in High River. The RCMP took a number of rifles from homes. Interestingly enough it was only the homes where the rifles had been registered that lost them.

I am very sorry that I sold my carbines and other rifles instead of just hiding them and keeping quiet that I still owned them.

Cheers

Out of curiosity what is the minimum barrel length and can that
include a muzzle brake? In the U.S. I believe it is 16 inches (I
somehow think it used to be 18 inches?). I ask as I once acquired a
small ring mauser carbine that had a short barrel and made a muzzle
brake and silver soldered it onto the barrel and while I never asked
the tax people it was acceptable in the trade as it was non removable.
--
cheers,

John B.

I forget what the minimum barrel length is but I do know that it does NOT include a muzzle brake or flash suppressor. For example say the minimum barrel length is your 16 inches and you have a barrel length of 1.5 inches and a flash suppressor of two inches. that weapon would be illegal.

Cheers

CHeers

On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 11:54:31 +0700, John B. wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 21:13:17 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/14/2020 8:13 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

[...]

There are many guns optimized for more civilized uses - shotguns
optimized for hunting birds, long range hunting rifles for elk at
1000 yards, ordinary hunting rifles (like a Ruger 10/22 for example),
competition target rifles, ordinary 0.22s that are good at tin cans,
etc.

The Ruger 10/22 is a nice, practical choice. I bought one myself.
I'm guessing you mention it specifically because you have one or have
used one.

But. It's a semi-automatic weapon. The standard magazine is 10
rounds,
but larger ones are readily available. It does take a much less
powerful cartridge than the AR-15, but, really, it works just the
same, at least from the operator's perspective. Ruger also makes the
mini-14,
which is a semi-auto chambered in .223, like the AR-15, but with wood
furniture and no carry handle on top.

Now, you could have chosen any of a multitude of rifles with falling
block, bolt, or pump action, but for *some* reason you chose the
10/22. Why? Didn't you consider that you and yours might be
irrestibly tempted to hose down the Ohio countryside with semi-auto
fire?

Wait. You might have left the evil magazine at home, or thrown it in
the trash, and loaded the rifle by hand, single shot. Easy enough if
your fingers are small. Enquiring minds want to know.


Here's the world in which we actually live:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s....-2018/tables/
expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls

Note edged weapons beat rifles 5 to 1.

Given Frank's battle-cry "ban the AR-15" it is interesting to see that
some 297 murders were commented with rifles, or in other words could
have been commented with an AR-15, amounted to 2.8% of the total firearm
deaths while those commented with hand guns, i.e., pistols, which Frank
never mentions amounted to 64%.
Err, does that excludeshootings by cop?