|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#241
|
|||
|
|||
Really, really dumb
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 18:48:26 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote: On Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 5:10:31 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote: On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 07:26:00 -0800 (PST), jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 8:48:36 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote: snip Actually I was talking about large magazines, which have been used on .22 rifles for years. And I included a note (and labeling it so) that large magazines had been used on one of the first repeating rifles made in America, in 1860. But not 100 rounds -- or more. Looking at it from a Second Amendment standpoint: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM3vlPPNFVM AR-15 variants are fun guns, but at some point, fun has to be balanced against public welfare -- kind of like we do with drinking and driving and basically everything else in the world. We even crack-down on religion at some point: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oregon-...healing-trial/ -- Jay Beattie. I don't think anyone was thinking of a 100 round magazine. While I didn't read all the various laws about magazine capacity the few I did read used the number "10" as a sort of the dividing line. However this was defined as a shoulder weapon as many commonly used pistols today have a magazine holding more than 10 rounds. The Glock 19 for example, a very common choice of police departments, has a standard 15 round magazine. It might be interesting to know that a shotgun used for migratory bird hunting, by federal law, is limited to 3 rounds, usually by use of a plug in the magazine to restrict capacity to that number. I can't give the specific date of this law but I have read that it dates to the 1930's. Interestingly I have never heard anyone complain about that limit to magazine capacity :-) FYI, there are lots of weapons restrictions in connection with taking game in Oregon. See e.g. https://www.dfw.state.or.us/resource...ns/weapons.asp Oregon also has certain hunts that are only open for muzzle loaders, so going old-school pays dividends. Max five round capacity for semi-auto center fire except hunting squirrels. The AR-15 is a squirrel rifle. Aim for the head. https://myodfw.com/big-game-hunting/...-gray-squirrel -- Jay Beattie. Historically one "barked" squirrels. Fired so the bullet grazes the tree bark under the squirrel's head and kills by concussion and ruins no edible meat which world be lost if you hit the squirrel dead center with your .69 cal musket (which you maintain as part of your Militia requirements :-) -- cheers, John B. |
Ads |
#242
|
|||
|
|||
Really, really dumb
On Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 5:44:20 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/16/2020 3:17 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/16/2020 2:12 PM, Tom Kunich wrote: Why do you continuously make straw man arguments. A .22 long rifle is at LEAST as deadly as the .223 AR-15. Absolute total bull****. Read https://www.thetrace.org/2017/06/phy...ssault-rifles/ starting at the heading "Velocity." Sheesh. .22LR vs .223 has had more study than you might think: https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/22...ginners-guide/ That's opinion. How about data? If you wade through the famous FBI paper, they cover a lot of variables. excerpts: "With the exceptions of hits to the brain or upper spinal cord, the concept of reliable and reproducible immediate incapacitation of the human target by gunshot wounds to the torso is a myth.27 The human target is a complex and durable one." Which certainly does not claim a .22 is as lethal as an AR-15 .223 round! "A bullet simply cannot knock a man down. Nobody here has claimed it could. The difference in lethality between a 22LR and an AR-15's .223 is related to its velocity (or energy) and its shape, and how they affect the internal organs and/or bones. An experienced MD says: "I have seen a .22 caliber bullet completely incapacitate someone and a .45 ACP fail to achieve that result. People and animals shot with 10mm rounds and .357 SIG rounds have continued to run from the police. I have been on scene as a tactical medical provider when a suicidal person shot himself in the head with a .45 Colt round resulting in instant death. And I have seen the same results in suicides that used smaller calibers, including .22, .25, and .32. I have also seen people hit with 9mm, .40, and .45 without so much as staggering or slowing their verbal or physical activities." https://www.policemag.com/340890/sto...-and-realities We're not talking about odd incidents, or mythical knocking people down. We're We're talking about physical damage to humans causing fatalities. I can give several links to details, if really needed - and I can't believe it's needed. But this is silly; let's cut to the chase: If a standard 22LR were as lethal as a backyard 22 rifle, why would the military pay for the much more expensive ammunition that was heavier, bulkier, and harder to carry? Why would they not just use 22s? Again: Sheesh! - Frank Krygowski |
#243
|
|||
|
|||
Really, really dumb
On Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 6:31:29 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 11:32:50 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/15/2020 11:53 PM, John B. wrote: I've frequently mentioned that Singapore, as an example, has laws to protect society while the U.S.has laws to protect the individual. John, you first mock the idea of laws; then you turn around and praise the strict laws and enforcement of Singapore. It's looking like you don't really have a rational point. You're just arguing to argue. Nice try. You delete the majority of the message and seize on a single paragraph. But no, I don't mock the idea of laws, but I do mock your seeming assertion that simply making a new law somehow, in some magically way, will make everything wonderful. Which, of course, I never said. Not even close. Your "straw man" technique is so obvious, it should embarrass you. - Frank Krygowski |
#244
|
|||
|
|||
Really, really dumb
On Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 6:39:35 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 11:26:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/15/2020 11:48 PM, John B. wrote: You then assumed, for whatever reason, that a Henry .22 ( a rifle that has never existed) was the subject under discussion... A Henry .22 has never existed?? Good grief! https://www.henryusa.com/rifles/lever-action-22-rifle/ Nice try. Did you read the part that said: "Henry Repeating Arms was started by Louis Imperato and his son Anthony Imperato in Brooklyn, New York in 1996. The first model produced was the Henry H001 Classic Lever Action .22 ... Which further proves your statement was wrong. "A Henry .22 ( a rifle that has never existed) ..." remains absolute nonsense. Your deflection doesn't change that fact. - Frank Krygowski |
#245
|
|||
|
|||
Really, really dumb
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 20:07:06 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote: On Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 6:31:29 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote: On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 11:32:50 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/15/2020 11:53 PM, John B. wrote: I've frequently mentioned that Singapore, as an example, has laws to protect society while the U.S.has laws to protect the individual. John, you first mock the idea of laws; then you turn around and praise the strict laws and enforcement of Singapore. It's looking like you don't really have a rational point. You're just arguing to argue. Nice try. You delete the majority of the message and seize on a single paragraph. But no, I don't mock the idea of laws, but I do mock your seeming assertion that simply making a new law somehow, in some magically way, will make everything wonderful. Which, of course, I never said. Not even close. Your "straw man" technique is so obvious, it should embarrass you. - Frank Krygowski Admittedly I embellish your statements with a bit of poetry but the meaning is as you write. For example, Canada has gun laws and everything is, apparently in your mind, better. And than when I mention the rather loose gun laws in Vermont and the low firearm crime rate as opposed to the rather rigid gun laws in Washington D.C. and their high firearm crime rate you go slip sliding away rather than facing facts. You seem quite adapt at ignoring facts and espousing your own fantasies regardless of their validity. So lets hear it for Frank. Laws will prevent crime; all bicycles must have 18mm tires; and helmets do no good at all. -- cheers, John B. |
#246
|
|||
|
|||
Really, really dumb
On 1/16/2020 10:04 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 5:44:20 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote: On 1/16/2020 3:17 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/16/2020 2:12 PM, Tom Kunich wrote: Why do you continuously make straw man arguments. A .22 long rifle is at LEAST as deadly as the .223 AR-15. Absolute total bull****. Read https://www.thetrace.org/2017/06/phy...ssault-rifles/ starting at the heading "Velocity." Sheesh. .22LR vs .223 has had more study than you might think: https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/22...ginners-guide/ That's opinion. How about data? If you wade through the famous FBI paper, they cover a lot of variables. excerpts: "With the exceptions of hits to the brain or upper spinal cord, the concept of reliable and reproducible immediate incapacitation of the human target by gunshot wounds to the torso is a myth.27 The human target is a complex and durable one." Which certainly does not claim a .22 is as lethal as an AR-15 .223 round! "A bullet simply cannot knock a man down. Nobody here has claimed it could. The difference in lethality between a 22LR and an AR-15's .223 is related to its velocity (or energy) and its shape, and how they affect the internal organs and/or bones. An experienced MD says: "I have seen a .22 caliber bullet completely incapacitate someone and a .45 ACP fail to achieve that result. People and animals shot with 10mm rounds and .357 SIG rounds have continued to run from the police. I have been on scene as a tactical medical provider when a suicidal person shot himself in the head with a .45 Colt round resulting in instant death. And I have seen the same results in suicides that used smaller calibers, including .22, .25, and .32. I have also seen people hit with 9mm, .40, and .45 without so much as staggering or slowing their verbal or physical activities." https://www.policemag.com/340890/sto...-and-realities We're not talking about odd incidents, or mythical knocking people down. We're We're talking about physical damage to humans causing fatalities. I can give several links to details, if really needed - and I can't believe it's needed. But this is silly; let's cut to the chase: If a standard 22LR were as lethal as a backyard 22 rifle, why would the military pay for the much more expensive ammunition that was heavier, bulkier, and harder to carry? Why would they not just use 22s? Again: Sheesh! - Frank Krygowski Maybe they know something about their craft. Back at you- why would the US military change from .308/ 7.62 down to the .556/ .223 round for their primary issue rifles? As with tires or anything else there may well be an optimal solution at some point in time to a dynamic series of problems. That doesn't mean parameters don't change, at which time something else may be optimal. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#247
|
|||
|
|||
Really, really dumb
On Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 1:17:45 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/16/2020 2:12 PM, Tom Kunich wrote: On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 4:02:31 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: tion, made in Do you suppose there might be some difference in lethality between the Henry's 22 caliber bullet and that of the AR-15? If not, I'm surprised that the military doesn't use Henry 22 rifles exclusively. They're pretty inexpensive. Think of the tax money to be saved! Why do you continuously make straw man arguments. A .22 long rifle is at LEAST as deadly as the .223 AR-15. Absolute total bull****. Read https://www.thetrace.org/2017/06/phy...ssault-rifles/ starting at the heading "Velocity." Sheesh. -- - Frank Krygowski You didn't read that article did you? |
#248
|
|||
|
|||
Really, really dumb
On Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 8:04:39 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 5:44:20 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote: On 1/16/2020 3:17 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/16/2020 2:12 PM, Tom Kunich wrote: Why do you continuously make straw man arguments. A .22 long rifle is at LEAST as deadly as the .223 AR-15. Absolute total bull****. Read https://www.thetrace.org/2017/06/phy...ssault-rifles/ starting at the heading "Velocity." Sheesh. .22LR vs .223 has had more study than you might think: https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/22...ginners-guide/ That's opinion. How about data? If you wade through the famous FBI paper, they cover a lot of variables. excerpts: "With the exceptions of hits to the brain or upper spinal cord, the concept of reliable and reproducible immediate incapacitation of the human target by gunshot wounds to the torso is a myth.27 The human target is a complex and durable one." Which certainly does not claim a .22 is as lethal as an AR-15 .223 round! "A bullet simply cannot knock a man down. Nobody here has claimed it could. The difference in lethality between a 22LR and an AR-15's .223 is related to its velocity (or energy) and its shape, and how they affect the internal organs and/or bones. An experienced MD says: "I have seen a .22 caliber bullet completely incapacitate someone and a .45 ACP fail to achieve that result. People and animals shot with 10mm rounds and .357 SIG rounds have continued to run from the police. I have been on scene as a tactical medical provider when a suicidal person shot himself in the head with a .45 Colt round resulting in instant death. And I have seen the same results in suicides that used smaller calibers, including .22, .25, and .32. I have also seen people hit with 9mm, .40, and .45 without so much as staggering or slowing their verbal or physical activities." https://www.policemag.com/340890/sto...-and-realities We're not talking about odd incidents, or mythical knocking people down. We're We're talking about physical damage to humans causing fatalities. I can give several links to details, if really needed - and I can't believe it's needed. But this is silly; let's cut to the chase: If a standard 22LR were as lethal as a backyard 22 rifle, why would the military pay for the much more expensive ammunition that was heavier, bulkier, and harder to carry? Why would they not just use 22s? Again: Sheesh! - Frank Krygowski Obviously just talking about a gun made you **** your pants. But they you aren't going to take away other people's rights because you don't like them. |
#249
|
|||
|
|||
Really, really dumb
On 1/17/2020 9:01 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/16/2020 10:04 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 5:44:20 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote: On 1/16/2020 3:17 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/16/2020 2:12 PM, Tom Kunich wrote: Why do you continuously make straw man arguments. A .22 long rifle is at LEAST as deadly as the .223 AR-15. Absolute total bull****. Read https://www.thetrace.org/2017/06/phy...ssault-rifles/ starting at the heading "Velocity." Sheesh. .22LR vs .223 has had more study than you might think: https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/22...ginners-guide/ That's opinion. How about data? If you wade through the famous FBI paper, they cover a lot of variables. excerpts: "With the exceptions of hits to the brain or upper spinal cord, the concept of reliable and reproducible immediate incapacitation of the human target by gunshot wounds to the torso is a myth.27 The human target is a complex and durable one." Which certainly does not claim a .22 is as lethal as an AR-15 .223 round! "A bullet simply cannot knock a man down. Nobody here has claimed it could. The difference in lethality between a 22LR and an AR-15's .223 is related to its velocity (or energy) and its shape, and how they affect the internal organs and/or bones. An experienced MD says: "I have seen a .22 caliber bullet completely incapacitate someone and a .45 ACP fail to achieve that result. People and animals shot with 10mm rounds and .357 SIG rounds have continued to run from the police. I have been on scene as a tactical medical provider when a suicidal person shot himself in the head with a .45 Colt round resulting in instant death. And I have seen the same results in suicides that used smaller calibers, including .22, .25, and .32. I have also seen people hit with 9mm, .40, and .45 without so much as staggering or slowing their verbal or physical activities." https://www.policemag.com/340890/sto...-and-realities We're not talking about odd incidents, or mythical knocking people down. We're We're talking about physical damage to humans causing fatalities. I can give several links to details, if really needed - and I can't believe it's needed. But this is silly; let's cut to the chase: If a standard 22LR were as lethal as a backyard 22 rifle, why would the military pay for the much more expensive ammunition that was heavier, bulkier, and harder to carry? Why would they not just use 22s? Again: Sheesh! - Frank Krygowski Maybe they know something about their craft. Back at you- why would the US military change from .308/ 7.62 down to the .556/ .223 round for their primary issue rifles? Because they found that the benefits of carrying more lighter rounds greatly outweighed the advantages of heavier rounds. And because the 223 cartridge was much more deadly once it entered an enemy's body. There were reports (from special forces who first used these guns) of 223s leaving gaping holes in enemy bodies where bullets of previous designs would pass through and cause much less damage. Also, the AR-style gun itself was easier to shoot. Here, read this: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...-story/545153/ As with tires or anything else there may well be an optimal solution at some point in time to a dynamic series of problems. That doesn't mean parameters don't change, at which time something else may be optimal. Granted. But what I tried to say (but mis-spoke yesterday) is still true. The AR's 223 round is much more deadly than that of a backyard 22 rifle. If it were not, soldiers would be shooting 22LRs in battle. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#250
|
|||
|
|||
Really, really dumb
On 1/17/2020 9:44 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/17/2020 9:01 AM, AMuzi wrote: On 1/16/2020 10:04 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 5:44:20 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote: On 1/16/2020 3:17 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/16/2020 2:12 PM, Tom Kunich wrote: Why do you continuously make straw man arguments. A .22 long rifle is at LEAST as deadly as the .223 AR-15. Absolute total bull****. Read https://www.thetrace.org/2017/06/phy...ssault-rifles/ starting at the heading "Velocity." Sheesh. .22LR vs .223 has had more study than you might think: https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/22...ginners-guide/ That's opinion. How about data? If you wade through the famous FBI paper, they cover a lot of variables. excerpts: "With the exceptions of hits to the brain or upper spinal cord, the concept of reliable and reproducible immediate incapacitation of the human target by gunshot wounds to the torso is a myth.27 The human target is a complex and durable one." Which certainly does not claim a .22 is as lethal as an AR-15 .223 round! "A bullet simply cannot knock a man down. Nobody here has claimed it could. The difference in lethality between a 22LR and an AR-15's .223 is related to its velocity (or energy) and its shape, and how they affect the internal organs and/or bones. An experienced MD says: "I have seen a .22 caliber bullet completely incapacitate someone and a .45 ACP fail to achieve that result. People and animals shot with 10mm rounds and .357 SIG rounds have continued to run from the police. I have been on scene as a tactical medical provider when a suicidal person shot himself in the head with a .45 Colt round resulting in instant death. And I have seen the same results in suicides that used smaller calibers, including .22, .25, and .32. I have also seen people hit with 9mm, .40, and .45 without so much as staggering or slowing their verbal or physical activities." https://www.policemag.com/340890/sto...-and-realities We're not talking about odd incidents, or mythical knocking people down. We're We're talking about physical damage to humans causing fatalities. I can give several links to details, if really needed - and I can't believe it's needed. But this is silly; let's cut to the chase: If a standard 22LR were as lethal as a backyard 22 rifle, why would the military pay for the much more expensive ammunition that was heavier, bulkier, and harder to carry? Why would they not just use 22s? Again: Sheesh! - Frank Krygowski Maybe they know something about their craft. Back at you- why would the US military change from .308/ 7.62 down to the .556/ .223 round for their primary issue rifles? Because they found that the benefits of carrying more lighter rounds greatly outweighed the advantages of heavier rounds. And because the 223 cartridge was much more deadly once it entered an enemy's body. There were reports (from special forces who first used these guns) of 223s leaving gaping holes in enemy bodies where bullets of previous designs would pass through and cause much less damage. Also, the AR-style gun itself was easier to shoot. Here, read this: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...-story/545153/ As with tires or anything else there may well be an optimal solution at some point in time to a dynamic series of problems. That doesn't mean parameters don't change, at which time something else may be optimal. Granted. But what I tried to say (but mis-spoke yesterday) is still true. The AR's 223 round is much more deadly than that of a backyard 22 rifle. If it were not, soldiers would be shooting 22LRs in battle. Not as deadly generally as 7.62. Or a Barrett .50 for that matter. Special Forces still make excellent use of .22 for some types of action (as a recent post noted). No matter how you try to spin this, an AR-15 semi is not magic, and a ..223 is not magic either. They are both mediocre in a range of weapons by any measure. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
This is just dumb... | Uncle Dave | Racing | 19 | September 28th 09 08:58 AM |
HOW dumb?? | Brimstone[_6_] | UK | 89 | April 6th 09 03:49 PM |
this is so dumb | brockfisher05 | Unicycling | 10 | December 18th 04 03:38 AM |
Dumb question | the black rose | General | 12 | October 19th 04 09:37 PM |
How dumb am I? | Andy P | UK | 2 | September 18th 03 08:37 PM |