Build it and they won't come

MLB plays altered video as entertainment...the kid first once had his globe over the wall...the yank did stutter to 3rd running home. Only once.

On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 9:04:01 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/17/2017 3:01 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 21:57:00 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski wrote:
No unbiased person can pretend that Whitman wouldn't have
killed many more people if he were able to fire 100 rounds per minute.

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

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

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

I'm proposing an upper limit on firing rate. We can discuss what that
limit should be. How about no more than 10 rounds per minute?

So no more semi-automatic guns in America?

Yes, if they can fire (say) more than 10 rounds per minute. And yes, I
know existing guns can fire faster. I don't think they need to.

I've asked you to state what firing rate is really necessary in a
privately owned firearm, and to explain why you think that rate is
necessary. Why don't you answer those questions?

But Frank, I will repeat. Why this fetish about rate of fire?

That's been explained. Do you _really_ need to read it again?

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

We can discuss. Can a double barrel shotgun fire more than 10 rounds in
a minute? Does it need to? I suspect it doesn't, but I'll admit that
I've never hunted with a shotgun.

This is very simple Frank - Put a bill on the floor of your state. After all, everyone is a gun-grabber and you demonstrated that with a poll from a far left-wing site that polls in grade schools and Starbucks coffee shops.

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 10:45:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/18/2017 4:12 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 00:19:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


Let's talk instead about basics. Let's talk about how many rounds can be
shot in one minute. That's not a hard metric to understand.

With that in mind, let me try again: What's the minimum number of rounds
that you think a privately owned gun must be able to shoot in one
minute? And why, specifically, do you think that number is necessary?

You are going to be a lot more specific. What do you mean by shoots in
a minute? Do you mean how many shells/cartridges expended in a one
minute period? Or do you mean a rate of fire in rounds per minute?

I mean: How many shots in one minute? That should not be hard to understand.

Bulls eye target shooters, pistol fire matches requiring 5 rounds in
10 seconds, or 30 rounds per minute.

I'm not counting (say) two quick blasts from a standard shotgun, or 6
shots in 12 seconds from a double acting revolver as being 30 shots in a
minute. Why? Because after those shots, you need to manually reload. Few
people would ever fire even 12 shots in a minute with those guns. I
think that's perfectly adequate for any realistic scenario.

Frank, that is exactly what I have been trying to convince you of
since this discussion began. The so called "rate of fire" is a
meaningless statistic as it is almost universally quoted as the
maximum rate of fire that a firearm with an unlimited source of
cartridges could fire.

Practically speaking, why would a private citizen need more?

I'm not 100% sure of the police qualification courses but I believe
that they include several strings of 3 or 4 shots in 3 seconds. Call
it 3 rounds so 60 RPM.

Again, I'm talking about private citizens, not police or military. Why
does a private citizen need to shoot more than 10 or 12 times in one minute?

Which is why the now defunct " the Public Safety and Recreational
Firearms Use Protection Act" did exactly that. Among other things it
limited the magazine capacity of semi-automatic firearms thus
effectively limiting the effective rate of fire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa...lt_Weapons_Ban

Rather then worry about how many rounds per minute an assault rifle
can fire you might concern yourself with the question why did your due
elected law makers wrote a law to control assault rifles that was
limited to only a ten year period.

Another thing that has always made me wonder is that the license to
purchase a full automatic "machine gun" was originally specified in
the 1934 National Firearms Act as $200.

A quick look at average wages in 1934 shows that the average
"Electrical Worker" had an annual salary of $1,559, which meant that
when the Act was promulgated the license fee was a significant number
of dollars.

Today? Electrician - A journeyman electrician can expect a range from
$29,679-$80,787, with a median wage of $20/hour. Which, of course,
means that a $200 license fee is peanuts.

Should the National Firearms Act be updated?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 10/18/2017 7:18 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 10:45:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/18/2017 4:12 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 00:19:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


Let's talk instead about basics. Let's talk about how many rounds can be
shot in one minute. That's not a hard metric to understand.

With that in mind, let me try again: What's the minimum number of rounds
that you think a privately owned gun must be able to shoot in one
minute? And why, specifically, do you think that number is necessary?

You are going to be a lot more specific. What do you mean by shoots in
a minute? Do you mean how many shells/cartridges expended in a one
minute period? Or do you mean a rate of fire in rounds per minute?

I mean: How many shots in one minute? That should not be hard to understand.

Bulls eye target shooters, pistol fire matches requiring 5 rounds in
10 seconds, or 30 rounds per minute.

I'm not counting (say) two quick blasts from a standard shotgun, or 6
shots in 12 seconds from a double acting revolver as being 30 shots in a
minute. Why? Because after those shots, you need to manually reload. Few
people would ever fire even 12 shots in a minute with those guns. I
think that's perfectly adequate for any realistic scenario.

Frank, that is exactly what I have been trying to convince you of
since this discussion began. The so called "rate of fire" is a
meaningless statistic as it is almost universally quoted as the
maximum rate of fire that a firearm with an unlimited source of
cartridges could fire.

Practically speaking, why would a private citizen need more?

I'm not 100% sure of the police qualification courses but I believe
that they include several strings of 3 or 4 shots in 3 seconds. Call
it 3 rounds so 60 RPM.

Again, I'm talking about private citizens, not police or military. Why
does a private citizen need to shoot more than 10 or 12 times in one minute?

Which is why the now defunct " the Public Safety and Recreational
Firearms Use Protection Act" did exactly that. Among other things it
limited the magazine capacity of semi-automatic firearms thus
effectively limiting the effective rate of fire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa...lt_Weapons_Ban

Rather then worry about how many rounds per minute an assault rifle
can fire you might concern yourself with the question why did your due
elected law makers wrote a law to control assault rifles that was
limited to only a ten year period.

Another thing that has always made me wonder is that the license to
purchase a full automatic "machine gun" was originally specified in
the 1934 National Firearms Act as $200.

A quick look at average wages in 1934 shows that the average
"Electrical Worker" had an annual salary of $1,559, which meant that
when the Act was promulgated the license fee was a significant number
of dollars.

Today? Electrician - A journeyman electrician can expect a range from
$29,679-$80,787, with a median wage of $20/hour. Which, of course,
means that a $200 license fee is peanuts.

Should the National Firearms Act be updated?


You could argue the $200 fee, while a lot of money, is
cheaper than a lot of government 'processing fees' nowadays.
Heck, just getting a personal paragraph into our 70-volume
tax code can cost $100,000 or more.

But the limitations and impediments of an FFL are not merely
monetary- it's a long, tedious process and involves all your
personal history into a Form 4 plus an ATF character
evaluation/ background check. Even with your FFL, every
purchase is recorded, no other person can so much as touch
your firearm and it must be secured at all times at the
listed address. The FFL holder is subject to anytime ATF
inspection which they really do, randomly, at odd hours.

Then again, as North Dakotans say of their weather, "keeps
out the riffraff". Licensed machine guns or light
automatics used in any criminal manner at all are virtually
unknown. I linked earlier to the numbers, something over
5,000 in Ohio alone.

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

On 10/18/2017 8:18 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 10:45:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I'm not counting (say) two quick blasts from a standard shotgun, or 6
shots in 12 seconds from a double acting revolver as being 30 shots in a
minute. Why? Because after those shots, you need to manually reload. Few
people would ever fire even 12 shots in a minute with those guns. I
think that's perfectly adequate for any realistic scenario.

Frank, that is exactly what I have been trying to convince you of
since this discussion began. The so called "rate of fire" is a
meaningless statistic as it is almost universally quoted as the
maximum rate of fire that a firearm with an unlimited source of
cartridges could fire.

Yes, John. And back in the day automakers had all sorts of unrealistic
ways of stating their engine's horsepower. We don't use those methods today.

I'm not discussing pretending a one-second burst can realistically
extrapolate out to a minute. I'm talking about this: How many rounds
should a civilian's gun be able to fire in one minute? And why?

Now: Is there any way I can squeeze answers out of you?

Again, I'm talking about private citizens, not police or military. Why
does a private citizen need to shoot more than 10 or 12 times in one minute?

Which is why the now defunct " the Public Safety and Recreational
Firearms Use Protection Act" did exactly that. Among other things it
limited the magazine capacity of semi-automatic firearms thus
effectively limiting the effective rate of fire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa...lt_Weapons_Ban

Rather then worry about how many rounds per minute an assault rifle
can fire you might concern yourself with the question why did your due
elected law makers wrote a law to control assault rifles that was
limited to only a ten year period.

That's easy. The NRA works at the behest of gun manufacturers to bribe
as many lawmakers as possible.

OK, I answered your question. You should now answer mine. How many
rounds does a private citizen's gun really need to fire in a minute? And
why?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/18/2017 9:28 PM, AMuzi wrote:


But the limitations and impediments of an FFL are not merely monetary-
it's a long, tedious process and involves all your personal history into
a Form 4 plus an ATF character evaluation/ background check. Even with
your FFL, every purchase is recorded, no other person can so much as
touch your firearm and it must be secured at all times at the listed
address. The FFL holder is subject to anytime ATF inspection which they
really do, randomly, at odd hours.

Then again, as North Dakotans say of their weather, "keeps out the
riffraff".Â* Licensed machine guns or light automatics used in any
criminal manner at all are virtually unknown. I linked earlier to the
numbers, something over 5,000 in Ohio alone.

How about that? Gun control works!

--
- Frank Krygowski

My internet connection seems to have lost my reply. Pardon me if this is
a duplicate:

On 10/18/2017 8:18 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 10:45:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


I'm not counting (say) two quick blasts from a standard shotgun, or 6
shots in 12 seconds from a double acting revolver as being 30 shots in a
minute. Why? Because after those shots, you need to manually reload. Few
people would ever fire even 12 shots in a minute with those guns. I
think that's perfectly adequate for any realistic scenario.

Frank, that is exactly what I have been trying to convince you of
since this discussion began. The so called "rate of fire" is a
meaningless statistic as it is almost universally quoted as the
maximum rate of fire that a firearm with an unlimited source of
cartridges could fire.

John, I'm not talking about advertised rate of fire, or of pretending a
brief burst can be extrapolated to a full minute. As I've explained, I'm
asking about something quite simple: How many rounds does a private
citizen's gun really need to fire in one minute? And why?

Again, I'm talking about private citizens, not police or military. Why
does a private citizen need to shoot more than 10 or 12 times in one minute?

Which is why the now defunct " the Public Safety and Recreational
Firearms Use Protection Act" did exactly that. Among other things it
limited the magazine capacity of semi-automatic firearms thus
effectively limiting the effective rate of fire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa...lt_Weapons_Ban

Rather then worry about how many rounds per minute an assault rifle
can fire you might concern yourself with the question why did your due
elected law makers wrote a law to control assault rifles that was
limited to only a ten year period.

That's easy. It was limited because the NRA, at the behest of gun
manufacturers, has bribed as many elected officials as possible.

(OK, they've legally contributed to their re-election funds. Same thing.)

Now that I've answered your question, you should answer mine. How many
rounds does a private citizen's gun really need to fire in one minute?
And why?

(For bonus points, you could summarize the gun laws in your countries of
residence and give their gun death and/or murder rates.)


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 20:28:06 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 10/18/2017 7:18 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 10:45:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/18/2017 4:12 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 00:19:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


Let's talk instead about basics. Let's talk about how many rounds can be
shot in one minute. That's not a hard metric to understand.

With that in mind, let me try again: What's the minimum number of rounds
that you think a privately owned gun must be able to shoot in one
minute? And why, specifically, do you think that number is necessary?

You are going to be a lot more specific. What do you mean by shoots in
a minute? Do you mean how many shells/cartridges expended in a one
minute period? Or do you mean a rate of fire in rounds per minute?

I mean: How many shots in one minute? That should not be hard to understand.

Bulls eye target shooters, pistol fire matches requiring 5 rounds in
10 seconds, or 30 rounds per minute.

I'm not counting (say) two quick blasts from a standard shotgun, or 6
shots in 12 seconds from a double acting revolver as being 30 shots in a
minute. Why? Because after those shots, you need to manually reload. Few
people would ever fire even 12 shots in a minute with those guns. I
think that's perfectly adequate for any realistic scenario.

Frank, that is exactly what I have been trying to convince you of
since this discussion began. The so called "rate of fire" is a
meaningless statistic as it is almost universally quoted as the
maximum rate of fire that a firearm with an unlimited source of
cartridges could fire.

Practically speaking, why would a private citizen need more?

I'm not 100% sure of the police qualification courses but I believe
that they include several strings of 3 or 4 shots in 3 seconds. Call
it 3 rounds so 60 RPM.

Again, I'm talking about private citizens, not police or military. Why
does a private citizen need to shoot more than 10 or 12 times in one minute?

Which is why the now defunct " the Public Safety and Recreational
Firearms Use Protection Act" did exactly that. Among other things it
limited the magazine capacity of semi-automatic firearms thus
effectively limiting the effective rate of fire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa...lt_Weapons_Ban

Rather then worry about how many rounds per minute an assault rifle
can fire you might concern yourself with the question why did your due
elected law makers wrote a law to control assault rifles that was
limited to only a ten year period.

Another thing that has always made me wonder is that the license to
purchase a full automatic "machine gun" was originally specified in
the 1934 National Firearms Act as $200.

A quick look at average wages in 1934 shows that the average
"Electrical Worker" had an annual salary of $1,559, which meant that
when the Act was promulgated the license fee was a significant number
of dollars.

Today? Electrician - A journeyman electrician can expect a range from
$29,679-$80,787, with a median wage of $20/hour. Which, of course,
means that a $200 license fee is peanuts.

Should the National Firearms Act be updated?


You could argue the $200 fee, while a lot of money, is
cheaper than a lot of government 'processing fees' nowadays.
Heck, just getting a personal paragraph into our 70-volume
tax code can cost $100,000 or more.

But the limitations and impediments of an FFL are not merely
monetary- it's a long, tedious process and involves all your
personal history into a Form 4 plus an ATF character
evaluation/ background check. Even with your FFL, every
purchase is recorded, no other person can so much as touch
your firearm and it must be secured at all times at the
listed address. The FFL holder is subject to anytime ATF
inspection which they really do, randomly, at odd hours.

Then again, as North Dakotans say of their weather, "keeps
out the riffraff". Licensed machine guns or light
automatics used in any criminal manner at all are virtually
unknown. I linked earlier to the numbers, something over
5,000 in Ohio alone.

I don't know too many criminals but I would suspect that most illegal
acts are carried out with whatever gun the felon happens to have,
although I did read an article about Colt 1911 pistols converted to
long magazine machine pistols, supposedly for John Dillinger although
I haven't found a reference to him actually using one in committing a
crime.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 23:48:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/18/2017 8:18 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 10:45:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I'm not counting (say) two quick blasts from a standard shotgun, or 6
shots in 12 seconds from a double acting revolver as being 30 shots in a
minute. Why? Because after those shots, you need to manually reload. Few
people would ever fire even 12 shots in a minute with those guns. I
think that's perfectly adequate for any realistic scenario.

Frank, that is exactly what I have been trying to convince you of
since this discussion began. The so called "rate of fire" is a
meaningless statistic as it is almost universally quoted as the
maximum rate of fire that a firearm with an unlimited source of
cartridges could fire.

Yes, John. And back in the day automakers had all sorts of unrealistic
ways of stating their engine's horsepower. We don't use those methods today.

I'm not discussing pretending a one-second burst can realistically
extrapolate out to a minute. I'm talking about this: How many rounds
should a civilian's gun be able to fire in one minute? And why?

Now: Is there any way I can squeeze answers out of you?

Again, I'm talking about private citizens, not police or military. Why
does a private citizen need to shoot more than 10 or 12 times in one minute?

Which is why the now defunct " the Public Safety and Recreational
Firearms Use Protection Act" did exactly that. Among other things it
limited the magazine capacity of semi-automatic firearms thus
effectively limiting the effective rate of fire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa...lt_Weapons_Ban

Rather then worry about how many rounds per minute an assault rifle
can fire you might concern yourself with the question why did your due
elected law makers wrote a law to control assault rifles that was
limited to only a ten year period.

That's easy. The NRA works at the behest of gun manufacturers to bribe
as many lawmakers as possible.

OK, I answered your question. You should now answer mine. How many
rounds does a private citizen's gun really need to fire in a minute? And
why?

I really enjoy the sarcasm. But I would comment that RPM, rather than
being some archaic number used in ancient times is the current
standard method of measuring the speed at which a firearm fires. The
Cyclic RPM seems to be what is most frequently cited but I have seen
the term "Combat" or "Sustained" rate used in discussions of military
weapons.

But again, I find your question to be ambiguous at best. I have posted
the required rate of fire for target weapons, pistols, rifles or
shotguns, which seems to be what you have been complaining about since
this thread began, and I have told you the courses of fire, and I have
also described the magazine capacity for assault rifles as specified
in, now expired, federal laws, which you appear to previously
ignored.

I can only add that the vast majority of target shooters are private
citizens.

As for the NRA and bribes. It is puzzling to me why the U.S.
electorate continues to elect individuals who can be so blatantly
corrupted.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 23:58:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

My internet connection seems to have lost my reply. Pardon me if this is
a duplicate:

On 10/18/2017 8:18 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 10:45:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


I'm not counting (say) two quick blasts from a standard shotgun, or 6
shots in 12 seconds from a double acting revolver as being 30 shots in a
minute. Why? Because after those shots, you need to manually reload. Few
people would ever fire even 12 shots in a minute with those guns. I
think that's perfectly adequate for any realistic scenario.

Frank, that is exactly what I have been trying to convince you of
since this discussion began. The so called "rate of fire" is a
meaningless statistic as it is almost universally quoted as the
maximum rate of fire that a firearm with an unlimited source of
cartridges could fire.

John, I'm not talking about advertised rate of fire, or of pretending a
brief burst can be extrapolated to a full minute. As I've explained, I'm
asking about something quite simple: How many rounds does a private
citizen's gun really need to fire in one minute? And why?

Again, I'm talking about private citizens, not police or military. Why
does a private citizen need to shoot more than 10 or 12 times in one minute?

Which is why the now defunct " the Public Safety and Recreational
Firearms Use Protection Act" did exactly that. Among other things it
limited the magazine capacity of semi-automatic firearms thus
effectively limiting the effective rate of fire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa...lt_Weapons_Ban

Rather then worry about how many rounds per minute an assault rifle
can fire you might concern yourself with the question why did your due
elected law makers wrote a law to control assault rifles that was
limited to only a ten year period.

That's easy. It was limited because the NRA, at the behest of gun
manufacturers, has bribed as many elected officials as possible.

(OK, they've legally contributed to their re-election funds. Same thing.)

Now that I've answered your question, you should answer mine. How many
rounds does a private citizen's gun really need to fire in one minute?
And why?

But Frank, I've done that in considerable detail. Admittedly I used
target shooting data but that is about the only reasonable accurate
data that is available.

If you go out rabbet shooting some days you don't see any rabbits and
I can remember days dove shooting when I fired 5 shots through a 12
gauge shotgun as fast as I could pump it.


(For bonus points, you could summarize the gun laws in your countries of
residence and give their gun death and/or murder rates.)

I lived in New Hampshire and Maine and my high school girl friend was
from Vermont, where there are practically no state gun laws. I'm sure
that there must have been some but certainly you could carry a firearm
in your car, you could even openly carry one down the main street in
town. When I lived there you could walk into any shop that sold guns
and just buy one. From memory I bought a S&W model 41 .22 pistol, in
Bangor Maine, and I think I had to show a driver's license, but I
don't remember the details.

The three lowest crime rates in the U.S.

--
Cheers,

John B.