#311
|
|||
|
|||
f Crazy eBay offers
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 20:02:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 4/21/2021 6:55 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 4/21/2021 3:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/21/2021 4:12 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 4/21/2021 1:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/21/2021 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 4/21/2021 12:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/21/2021 6:00 AM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 01:57:05 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 6:13:26 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote: On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 12:37:33 -0700, sms wrote: On 4/18/2021 7:42 PM, News 2021 wrote: On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 16:49:26 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed: Explain how his works Frank, exactly how is high gun ownership a contributing factor when all of the areas with high gun ownership are also the safest areas? Useless question but do you have data to back up your arse pluck? Tom is wrong of courseâ„¢. What is true is that the prevalence of gun ownership is associated with increases in violent crime. What is not clear is whether this gun prevalence is actually causing more violent crime or whether gun prevalence is a result of the increase in violent crime. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-prevalence-violent-crime.html One might also look at a state by state gun ownership compared to gun crimes... Alaska which has the highest rate of gun ownership in the U.S. has a gun ownership of 61.7% and a firearm murder rate of 5.3/100,000. Washington D.C. has a gun ownership of 25.9% and a firearm murder rate of 18.0/100,000. And to add even more fuel to the fire... the over all murder rate in Alaska is 7.7/100,000 and in D.C. it is 24.2/100,000. or another way of saying the same thing, Alaska has a non firearm murder rate of 2.4/100,000 and D.C. of 6.2/100,000. -- Cheers, John B. Just to argue with you John.* I think Frank stated before that gun ownership or amount of firearms was a contributing factor in murders.* Not the only cause. But a contributing cause.* Population density also plays a factor too.* Hard to murder someone if there is no one around to murder.* Washington DC has a population density of 11,686 people per square mile.* So in every square mile in DC there are 11,685 people to murder.* Lots of opportunities.* Alaska has a population density of 1.28 people per square mile.* So there is only 0.28, about 1/4th of a person, to murder per square mile.* Kind of hard to murder a fourth of a person.* Do you murder him four times to equal one murder?* So using your 7.7 and 24.2 murder rates above, DC should have a murder rate that is 9,129 times greater than Alaska.* But its just 3.14 times higher.* DC is doing pretty good.* In Alaska you would have to search 4 or 5 square miles to find one person to murder.* Do you know how hard it is to find one person in 4-5 square miles?* You'd wear yourself out looking for someone to murder.* Or forget why you even wanted to murder him by the time you found him.* 4-5 square miles is a whole lot of land. My point is that gun ownership and murder rates do not necessarily match. Of course they don't. Gun violence is obviously a multi-variate problem. But it is a problem, and only a Kunich-level extremist would say otherwise. So the question becomes, would reducing gun ownership significantly reduce the problem? I think it's obvious that reducing the ownership of at least certain types of guns by at least certain types of people would reduce the problem. That's the idea behind tighter background checks, which the vast majority of the country and the majority of NRA members favor. Why _not_ make it harder for a punk drug dealer to get a Glock? Good idea. We ought to have laws against burglary and robbery. Can't wait to see how that turns out. We could try the opposite tack: Reduce the laws against burglary and robbery, making them as weak as current gun laws. Because hey, every violation means laws don't work, right? That's where we are now and it's not working. Carjacking, beating women, firing stolen pistols into the citizenry, almost nothing earns jail time it seems. Or punks selling guns to other punks, militia boyz selling assault weapons to their bros... Was there an assault weapon in the news the past few years? I must have missed it. IIRC, at least one of the Bundy guys in Oregon had an illegal fully automatic gun. And one of the Proud Boys caught in Portland had 1000 rounds with him. But yes, he probably just intended them for target practice, carefully squeezing off one round ever five seconds then leisurely changing his 10 round magazine for a fresh one. A semi sport rifle is not only not an 'assault' rifle but it is not a 'weapon of war' either. In all 193 or so countries, no military issues AR-15 or anything at all like it. Please be more specific. "Anything at all like it" is pretty vague. And an AR-15 looks a lot closer to an AK47 than to, say, a classic Marlin deer rifle or Winchester shotgun or almost any squirrel gun. Why do the AR and AK look so similar? What are the advantages of that geometry over that of a classic long gun? I can go into details but basically the Germans "discovered" that full sized infantry weapons and aimed fire wasn't as effective as simply blasting away and "inundating" the area with bullets. Apparently they first tried "sub-machine guns" firing a pistol cartridge and found that these were too short range for general combat and so built the Sturmgewehr 44 (assault rifle 44) which was a weapon capable of both semi and full automatic fire and use an intermediate size cartridge, longer range then the "sub-machine gun" cartridge and shorter then the full sized rifle cartridge. The StG44 was first used on the German Eastern Front and proved far superior to the older bolt action rifles. The German weapon then led to the Russian AK-47 and later to the M-16. The StG44 weighed 4.6 kg, was 37 inches long and had a 30 round magazine. The AK-47 weighed 3.4 kg, was 35 inches long and had a 30 round magazine. The StG44 had a rate of fire of 500-600 rounds/minute and the AK had a rate of 600 rpm. Re the "geometry" of the two, a traditional rifle is designed to be fired from the shoulder and the grip is "designed" to be held with the elbow at almost right angle the body. The assault rifles are designed to be fired from either the waist or the shoulder and the "pistol grip" works well in either position. -- Cheers, John B. |
Ads |
#312
|
|||
|
|||
f Crazy eBay offers
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 21:59:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 4/21/2021 8:08 PM, John B. wrote: Here firearms are divided into two categories - military and non-military. Military type firearms are forbidden for possession by all, except for military when ordered to be armed, and non-military firearms are controlled in some manner with licensing and I'm not familiar with the details although I do know that possession of firearm is limited to Thai citizens. Interesting. How does your government define military vs. non-military firearms? I don't know, I assume that they have a list "this one is military and that one isn't". But the 1917 Colt automatic, .45 caliber, although neither the police or the military use it is classified as a "military weapon" as I remember a news report about someone shooting someone and the shooter was charged with murder and possessing a military weapon. In another post I mentioned the firearms act of 1934 while it doesn't mention military weapons does a pretty good job in describing weapons that should be banned or controlled in some manner. Perhaps the solution to the "gun problem" is to simply make a law saying that if you use a gun to murder someone it is an automatic death sentence :-) Singapore did this with dope and have the lowest dope use in the world. But, of course, Singapore actually executes the evil doers :-) -- Cheers, John B. |
#313
|
|||
|
|||
f Crazy eBay offers
Am 22.04.2021 um 08:03 schrieb John B.:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 20:02:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/21/2021 6:55 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 4/21/2021 3:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/21/2021 4:12 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 4/21/2021 1:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/21/2021 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 4/21/2021 12:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/21/2021 6:00 AM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 01:57:05 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 6:13:26 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote: On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 12:37:33 -0700, sms wrote: On 4/18/2021 7:42 PM, News 2021 wrote: On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 16:49:26 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed: Explain how his works Frank, exactly how is high gun ownership a contributing factor when all of the areas with high gun ownership are also the safest areas? Useless question but do you have data to back up your arse pluck? Tom is wrong of courseâ„¢. What is true is that the prevalence of gun ownership is associated with increases in violent crime. What is not clear is whether this gun prevalence is actually causing more violent crime or whether gun prevalence is a result of the increase in violent crime. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-prevalence-violent-crime.html One might also look at a state by state gun ownership compared to gun crimes... Alaska which has the highest rate of gun ownership in the U.S. has a gun ownership of 61.7% and a firearm murder rate of 5.3/100,000. Washington D.C. has a gun ownership of 25.9% and a firearm murder rate of 18.0/100,000. And to add even more fuel to the fire... the over all murder rate in Alaska is 7.7/100,000 and in D.C. it is 24.2/100,000. or another way of saying the same thing, Alaska has a non firearm murder rate of 2.4/100,000 and D.C. of 6.2/100,000. -- Cheers, John B. Just to argue with you John.Â* I think Frank stated before that gun ownership or amount of firearms was a contributing factor in murders.Â* Not the only cause. But a contributing cause.Â* Population density also plays a factor too.Â* Hard to murder someone if there is no one around to murder.Â* Washington DC has a population density of 11,686 people per square mile.Â* So in every square mile in DC there are 11,685 people to murder.Â* Lots of opportunities.Â* Alaska has a population density of 1.28 people per square mile.Â* So there is only 0.28, about 1/4th of a person, to murder per square mile.Â* Kind of hard to murder a fourth of a person.Â* Do you murder him four times to equal one murder?Â* So using your 7.7 and 24.2 murder rates above, DC should have a murder rate that is 9,129 times greater than Alaska.Â* But its just 3.14 times higher.Â* DC is doing pretty good.Â* In Alaska you would have to search 4 or 5 square miles to find one person to murder.Â* Do you know how hard it is to find one person in 4-5 square miles?Â* You'd wear yourself out looking for someone to murder.Â* Or forget why you even wanted to murder him by the time you found him.Â* 4-5 square miles is a whole lot of land. My point is that gun ownership and murder rates do not necessarily match. Of course they don't. Gun violence is obviously a multi-variate problem. But it is a problem, and only a Kunich-level extremist would say otherwise. So the question becomes, would reducing gun ownership significantly reduce the problem? I think it's obvious that reducing the ownership of at least certain types of guns by at least certain types of people would reduce the problem. That's the idea behind tighter background checks, which the vast majority of the country and the majority of NRA members favor. Why _not_ make it harder for a punk drug dealer to get a Glock? Good idea. We ought to have laws against burglary and robbery. Can't wait to see how that turns out. We could try the opposite tack: Reduce the laws against burglary and robbery, making them as weak as current gun laws. Because hey, every violation means laws don't work, right? That's where we are now and it's not working. Carjacking, beating women, firing stolen pistols into the citizenry, almost nothing earns jail time it seems. Or punks selling guns to other punks, militia boyz selling assault weapons to their bros... Was there an assault weapon in the news the past few years? I must have missed it. IIRC, at least one of the Bundy guys in Oregon had an illegal fully automatic gun. And one of the Proud Boys caught in Portland had 1000 rounds with him. But yes, he probably just intended them for target practice, carefully squeezing off one round ever five seconds then leisurely changing his 10 round magazine for a fresh one. A semi sport rifle is not only not an 'assault' rifle but it is not a 'weapon of war' either. In all 193 or so countries, no military issues AR-15 or anything at all like it. Please be more specific. "Anything at all like it" is pretty vague. And an AR-15 looks a lot closer to an AK47 than to, say, a classic Marlin deer rifle or Winchester shotgun or almost any squirrel gun. Why do the AR and AK look so similar? What are the advantages of that geometry over that of a classic long gun? I can go into details but basically the Germans "discovered" that full sized infantry weapons and aimed fire wasn't as effective as simply blasting away and "inundating" the area with bullets. Apparently they first tried "sub-machine guns" firing a pistol cartridge and found that these were too short range for general combat and so built the Sturmgewehr 44 (assault rifle 44) which was a weapon capable of both semi and full automatic fire and use an intermediate size cartridge, longer range then the "sub-machine gun" cartridge and shorter then the full sized rifle cartridge. The StG44 was first used on the German Eastern Front and proved far superior to the older bolt action rifles. In my German Army "Conscript Training" (as a motorbike messenger, my personal weapon would be an Uzi but we had to be familiar with all standard weapons), I learned that for "inundating" an area with bullets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_3_machine_gun#Operation (1,200 bullets per minute but exchange barrel to a cold one every 150 rounds) you use a machine gun operated by two people. With personal arms, you typically have cartridges of 20 shots and fire individual shorts or short blasts of at most 5 bullets. The G-3 I was trained at in 1989 has a geometry similar to a traditional rifle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_G3 its sucessor G36 has more of the AK-47 looks. |
#314
|
|||
|
|||
f Crazy eBay offers
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 10:11:27 +0200, Rolf Mantel
wrote: Am 22.04.2021 um 08:03 schrieb John B.: On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 20:02:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/21/2021 6:55 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 4/21/2021 3:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/21/2021 4:12 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 4/21/2021 1:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/21/2021 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 4/21/2021 12:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/21/2021 6:00 AM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 01:57:05 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 6:13:26 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote: On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 12:37:33 -0700, sms wrote: On 4/18/2021 7:42 PM, News 2021 wrote: On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 16:49:26 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed: Explain how his works Frank, exactly how is high gun ownership a contributing factor when all of the areas with high gun ownership are also the safest areas? Useless question but do you have data to back up your arse pluck? Tom is wrong of courseâ„¢. What is true is that the prevalence of gun ownership is associated with increases in violent crime. What is not clear is whether this gun prevalence is actually causing more violent crime or whether gun prevalence is a result of the increase in violent crime. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-prevalence-violent-crime.html One might also look at a state by state gun ownership compared to gun crimes... Alaska which has the highest rate of gun ownership in the U.S. has a gun ownership of 61.7% and a firearm murder rate of 5.3/100,000. Washington D.C. has a gun ownership of 25.9% and a firearm murder rate of 18.0/100,000. And to add even more fuel to the fire... the over all murder rate in Alaska is 7.7/100,000 and in D.C. it is 24.2/100,000. or another way of saying the same thing, Alaska has a non firearm murder rate of 2.4/100,000 and D.C. of 6.2/100,000. -- Cheers, John B. Just to argue with you John.* I think Frank stated before that gun ownership or amount of firearms was a contributing factor in murders.* Not the only cause. But a contributing cause.* Population density also plays a factor too.* Hard to murder someone if there is no one around to murder.* Washington DC has a population density of 11,686 people per square mile.* So in every square mile in DC there are 11,685 people to murder.* Lots of opportunities.* Alaska has a population density of 1.28 people per square mile.* So there is only 0.28, about 1/4th of a person, to murder per square mile.* Kind of hard to murder a fourth of a person.* Do you murder him four times to equal one murder?* So using your 7.7 and 24.2 murder rates above, DC should have a murder rate that is 9,129 times greater than Alaska.* But its just 3.14 times higher.* DC is doing pretty good.* In Alaska you would have to search 4 or 5 square miles to find one person to murder.* Do you know how hard it is to find one person in 4-5 square miles?* You'd wear yourself out looking for someone to murder.* Or forget why you even wanted to murder him by the time you found him.* 4-5 square miles is a whole lot of land. My point is that gun ownership and murder rates do not necessarily match. Of course they don't. Gun violence is obviously a multi-variate problem. But it is a problem, and only a Kunich-level extremist would say otherwise. So the question becomes, would reducing gun ownership significantly reduce the problem? I think it's obvious that reducing the ownership of at least certain types of guns by at least certain types of people would reduce the problem. That's the idea behind tighter background checks, which the vast majority of the country and the majority of NRA members favor. Why _not_ make it harder for a punk drug dealer to get a Glock? Good idea. We ought to have laws against burglary and robbery. Can't wait to see how that turns out. We could try the opposite tack: Reduce the laws against burglary and robbery, making them as weak as current gun laws. Because hey, every violation means laws don't work, right? That's where we are now and it's not working. Carjacking, beating women, firing stolen pistols into the citizenry, almost nothing earns jail time it seems. Or punks selling guns to other punks, militia boyz selling assault weapons to their bros... Was there an assault weapon in the news the past few years? I must have missed it. IIRC, at least one of the Bundy guys in Oregon had an illegal fully automatic gun. And one of the Proud Boys caught in Portland had 1000 rounds with him. But yes, he probably just intended them for target practice, carefully squeezing off one round ever five seconds then leisurely changing his 10 round magazine for a fresh one. A semi sport rifle is not only not an 'assault' rifle but it is not a 'weapon of war' either. In all 193 or so countries, no military issues AR-15 or anything at all like it. Please be more specific. "Anything at all like it" is pretty vague. And an AR-15 looks a lot closer to an AK47 than to, say, a classic Marlin deer rifle or Winchester shotgun or almost any squirrel gun. Why do the AR and AK look so similar? What are the advantages of that geometry over that of a classic long gun? I can go into details but basically the Germans "discovered" that full sized infantry weapons and aimed fire wasn't as effective as simply blasting away and "inundating" the area with bullets. Apparently they first tried "sub-machine guns" firing a pistol cartridge and found that these were too short range for general combat and so built the Sturmgewehr 44 (assault rifle 44) which was a weapon capable of both semi and full automatic fire and use an intermediate size cartridge, longer range then the "sub-machine gun" cartridge and shorter then the full sized rifle cartridge. The StG44 was first used on the German Eastern Front and proved far superior to the older bolt action rifles. In my German Army "Conscript Training" (as a motorbike messenger, my personal weapon would be an Uzi but we had to be familiar with all standard weapons), I learned that for "inundating" an area with bullets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_3_machine_gun#Operation (1,200 bullets per minute but exchange barrel to a cold one every 150 rounds) you use a machine gun operated by two people. With personal arms, you typically have cartridges of 20 shots and fire individual shorts or short blasts of at most 5 bullets. The G-3 I was trained at in 1989 has a geometry similar to a traditional rifle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_G3 its sucessor G36 has more of the AK-47 looks. When I said "inundating" the area with bullets, I was speaking in comparison of the Gewehr 98, the German Army's standard Infantry rifle, albeit modified to a shorter version, the Karabiner 98 kurz, which I read is still in use today. Your mention of firing 5 round bursts is just what I was referring to as the Mauser designs used a 5 round magazine. The G3 is listed as having a firing rate of about 500 rounds per minute while the G98 has a maximum firing rate of something like 15 rounds/minute. -- Cheers, John B. |
#315
|
|||
|
|||
f Crazy eBay offers
On 4/21/2021 10:12 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 17:55:21 -0500, AMuzi wrote: On 4/21/2021 3:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/21/2021 4:12 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 4/21/2021 1:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/21/2021 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 4/21/2021 12:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/21/2021 6:00 AM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 01:57:05 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 6:13:26 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote: On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 12:37:33 -0700, sms wrote: On 4/18/2021 7:42 PM, News 2021 wrote: On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 16:49:26 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed: Explain how his works Frank, exactly how is high gun ownership a contributing factor when all of the areas with high gun ownership are also the safest areas? Useless question but do you have data to back up your arse pluck? Tom is wrong of courseâ„¢. What is true is that the prevalence of gun ownership is associated with increases in violent crime. What is not clear is whether this gun prevalence is actually causing more violent crime or whether gun prevalence is a result of the increase in violent crime. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-prevalence-violent-crime.html One might also look at a state by state gun ownership compared to gun crimes... Alaska which has the highest rate of gun ownership in the U.S. has a gun ownership of 61.7% and a firearm murder rate of 5.3/100,000. Washington D.C. has a gun ownership of 25.9% and a firearm murder rate of 18.0/100,000. And to add even more fuel to the fire... the over all murder rate in Alaska is 7.7/100,000 and in D.C. it is 24.2/100,000. or another way of saying the same thing, Alaska has a non firearm murder rate of 2.4/100,000 and D.C. of 6.2/100,000. -- Cheers, John B. Just to argue with you John. I think Frank stated before that gun ownership or amount of firearms was a contributing factor in murders. Not the only cause. But a contributing cause. Population density also plays a factor too. Hard to murder someone if there is no one around to murder. Washington DC has a population density of 11,686 people per square mile. So in every square mile in DC there are 11,685 people to murder. Lots of opportunities. Alaska has a population density of 1.28 people per square mile. So there is only 0.28, about 1/4th of a person, to murder per square mile. Kind of hard to murder a fourth of a person. Do you murder him four times to equal one murder? So using your 7.7 and 24.2 murder rates above, DC should have a murder rate that is 9,129 times greater than Alaska. But its just 3.14 times higher. DC is doing pretty good. In Alaska you would have to search 4 or 5 square miles to find one person to murder. Do you know how hard it is to find one person in 4-5 square miles? You'd wear yourself out looking for someone to murder. Or forget why you even wanted to murder him by the time you found him. 4-5 square miles is a whole lot of land. My point is that gun ownership and murder rates do not necessarily match. Of course they don't. Gun violence is obviously a multi-variate problem. But it is a problem, and only a Kunich-level extremist would say otherwise. So the question becomes, would reducing gun ownership significantly reduce the problem? I think it's obvious that reducing the ownership of at least certain types of guns by at least certain types of people would reduce the problem. That's the idea behind tighter background checks, which the vast majority of the country and the majority of NRA members favor. Why _not_ make it harder for a punk drug dealer to get a Glock? Good idea. We ought to have laws against burglary and robbery. Can't wait to see how that turns out. We could try the opposite tack: Reduce the laws against burglary and robbery, making them as weak as current gun laws. Because hey, every violation means laws don't work, right? That's where we are now and it's not working. Carjacking, beating women, firing stolen pistols into the citizenry, almost nothing earns jail time it seems. Or punks selling guns to other punks, militia boyz selling assault weapons to their bros... Was there an assault weapon in the news the past few years? I must have missed it. Sturmgewehr are few and far between in crime reports. A semi sport rifle is not only not an 'assault' rifle but it is not a 'weapon of war' either. In all 193 or so countries, no military issues AR-15 or anything at all like it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y#Small_arm s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ngaporean_Army "Used by SAF Shooting Contingent" there's also a bolt-action Arctic rifle (in Singapore!), specialty arms not regular issue. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#317
|
|||
|
|||
f Crazy eBay offers
On 4/21/2021 11:49 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 9:44:05 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote: A Barrett .50 looks very 'traditional', requires a hyper-bureaucratic expensive license from ATF and hasn't been used for nefarious ends since David Koresh. Andy, I think we have a different idea of what "traditional" looks like. I do not know if the ATF licenses you speak of are required or not for the civilian versions Barrett sells to the public. It may be because of the 50 caliber. And the ability of the 50 caliber to penetrate armor. Don't know. But the Barrett sniper rifle used by the military is not a traditional sniper rifle like they used to use. The military used to use the Remington 700 and Winchester 70 bolt action rifles for snipers. Readily available bolt action hunting rifles. But now the military is using the Barrett 50 caliber for sniper purposes. And they use some other Barrett bolt action rifles for sniper rifles in calibers other than 50 caliber. 338 Lapura and 300 Winchester. The 50 calibers are semiauto. https://www.sportsmans.com/shooting-...rifle/p/p58635 https://barrett.net/products/firearms/m107a1/ Drop the 'appearance' argument. It's not definitive here. We do not disagree. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#318
|
|||
|
|||
f Crazy eBay offers
On Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 5:02:50 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/21/2021 6:55 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 4/21/2021 3:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/21/2021 4:12 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 4/21/2021 1:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/21/2021 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 4/21/2021 12:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/21/2021 6:00 AM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 01:57:05 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 6:13:26 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote: On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 12:37:33 -0700, sms wrote: On 4/18/2021 7:42 PM, News 2021 wrote: On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 16:49:26 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed: Explain how his works Frank, exactly how is high gun ownership a contributing factor when all of the areas with high gun ownership are also the safest areas? Useless question but do you have data to back up your arse pluck? Tom is wrong of courseâ„¢. What is true is that the prevalence of gun ownership is associated with increases in violent crime. What is not clear is whether this gun prevalence is actually causing more violent crime or whether gun prevalence is a result of the increase in violent crime. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-prevalence-violent-crime.html One might also look at a state by state gun ownership compared to gun crimes... Alaska which has the highest rate of gun ownership in the U.S. has a gun ownership of 61.7% and a firearm murder rate of 5.3/100,000. Washington D.C. has a gun ownership of 25.9% and a firearm murder rate of 18.0/100,000. And to add even more fuel to the fire... the over all murder rate in Alaska is 7.7/100,000 and in D.C. it is 24.2/100,000. or another way of saying the same thing, Alaska has a non firearm murder rate of 2.4/100,000 and D.C. of 6.2/100,000. -- Cheers, John B. Just to argue with you John. I think Frank stated before that gun ownership or amount of firearms was a contributing factor in murders. Not the only cause. But a contributing cause. Population density also plays a factor too. Hard to murder someone if there is no one around to murder. Washington DC has a population density of 11,686 people per square mile. So in every square mile in DC there are 11,685 people to murder. Lots of opportunities. Alaska has a population density of 1.28 people per square mile. So there is only 0.28, about 1/4th of a person, to murder per square mile. Kind of hard to murder a fourth of a person. Do you murder him four times to equal one murder? So using your 7.7 and 24.2 murder rates above, DC should have a murder rate that is 9,129 times greater than Alaska. But its just 3.14 times higher. DC is doing pretty good. In Alaska you would have to search 4 or 5 square miles to find one person to murder. Do you know how hard it is to find one person in 4-5 square miles? You'd wear yourself out looking for someone to murder. Or forget why you even wanted to murder him by the time you found him. 4-5 square miles is a whole lot of land. My point is that gun ownership and murder rates do not necessarily match. Of course they don't. Gun violence is obviously a multi-variate problem. But it is a problem, and only a Kunich-level extremist would say otherwise. So the question becomes, would reducing gun ownership significantly reduce the problem? I think it's obvious that reducing the ownership of at least certain types of guns by at least certain types of people would reduce the problem. That's the idea behind tighter background checks, which the vast majority of the country and the majority of NRA members favor. Why _not_ make it harder for a punk drug dealer to get a Glock? Good idea. We ought to have laws against burglary and robbery. Can't wait to see how that turns out. We could try the opposite tack: Reduce the laws against burglary and robbery, making them as weak as current gun laws. Because hey, every violation means laws don't work, right? That's where we are now and it's not working. Carjacking, beating women, firing stolen pistols into the citizenry, almost nothing earns jail time it seems. Or punks selling guns to other punks, militia boyz selling assault weapons to their bros... Was there an assault weapon in the news the past few years? I must have missed it. IIRC, at least one of the Bundy guys in Oregon had an illegal fully automatic gun. And one of the Proud Boys caught in Portland had 1000 rounds with him. But yes, he probably just intended them for target practice, carefully squeezing off one round ever five seconds then leisurely changing his 10 round magazine for a fresh one. A semi sport rifle is not only not an 'assault' rifle but it is not a 'weapon of war' either. In all 193 or so countries, no military issues AR-15 or anything at all like it. Please be more specific. "Anything at all like it" is pretty vague. And an AR-15 looks a lot closer to an AK47 than to, say, a classic Marlin deer rifle or Winchester shotgun or almost any squirrel gun. Why do the AR and AK look so similar? What are the advantages of that geometry over that of a classic long gun? Frank, since you don't shoot why would you dare to ask such a question? These rifles were designed that way for a reason - they are easier to shoot accurately. What goes on in your head? 1000 rds? So what. Ammunition means nothing or are you saying he was going to burn down many buildings with the inflammable powder like your Antifa were doing using simple gasoline? Why don't you explain why 30 gallons of gasoline isn't considered a dangerous weapon? |
#319
|
|||
|
|||
f Crazy eBay offers
On Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 11:03:25 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 20:02:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/21/2021 6:55 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 4/21/2021 3:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/21/2021 4:12 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 4/21/2021 1:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/21/2021 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 4/21/2021 12:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/21/2021 6:00 AM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 01:57:05 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 6:13:26 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote: On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 12:37:33 -0700, sms wrote: On 4/18/2021 7:42 PM, News 2021 wrote: On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 16:49:26 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed: Explain how his works Frank, exactly how is high gun ownership a contributing factor when all of the areas with high gun ownership are also the safest areas? Useless question but do you have data to back up your arse pluck? Tom is wrong of courseâ„¢. What is true is that the prevalence of gun ownership is associated with increases in violent crime. What is not clear is whether this gun prevalence is actually causing more violent crime or whether gun prevalence is a result of the increase in violent crime. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-prevalence-violent-crime.html One might also look at a state by state gun ownership compared to gun crimes... Alaska which has the highest rate of gun ownership in the U.S. has a gun ownership of 61.7% and a firearm murder rate of 5.3/100,000. Washington D.C. has a gun ownership of 25.9% and a firearm murder rate of 18.0/100,000. And to add even more fuel to the fire... the over all murder rate in Alaska is 7.7/100,000 and in D.C. it is 24.2/100,000. or another way of saying the same thing, Alaska has a non firearm murder rate of 2.4/100,000 and D.C. of 6.2/100,000. -- Cheers, John B. Just to argue with you John. I think Frank stated before that gun ownership or amount of firearms was a contributing factor in murders. Not the only cause. But a contributing cause. Population density also plays a factor too. Hard to murder someone if there is no one around to murder. Washington DC has a population density of 11,686 people per square mile. So in every square mile in DC there are 11,685 people to murder. Lots of opportunities. Alaska has a population density of 1.28 people per square mile. So there is only 0.28, about 1/4th of a person, to murder per square mile. Kind of hard to murder a fourth of a person. Do you murder him four times to equal one murder? So using your 7.7 and 24.2 murder rates above, DC should have a murder rate that is 9,129 times greater than Alaska. But its just 3.14 times higher. DC is doing pretty good. In Alaska you would have to search 4 or 5 square miles to find one person to murder. Do you know how hard it is to find one person in 4-5 square miles? You'd wear yourself out looking for someone to murder. Or forget why you even wanted to murder him by the time you found him. 4-5 square miles is a whole lot of land. My point is that gun ownership and murder rates do not necessarily match. Of course they don't. Gun violence is obviously a multi-variate problem. But it is a problem, and only a Kunich-level extremist would say otherwise. So the question becomes, would reducing gun ownership significantly reduce the problem? I think it's obvious that reducing the ownership of at least certain types of guns by at least certain types of people would reduce the problem. That's the idea behind tighter background checks, which the vast majority of the country and the majority of NRA members favor. Why _not_ make it harder for a punk drug dealer to get a Glock? Good idea. We ought to have laws against burglary and robbery. Can't wait to see how that turns out. We could try the opposite tack: Reduce the laws against burglary and robbery, making them as weak as current gun laws. Because hey, every violation means laws don't work, right? That's where we are now and it's not working. Carjacking, beating women, firing stolen pistols into the citizenry, almost nothing earns jail time it seems. Or punks selling guns to other punks, militia boyz selling assault weapons to their bros... Was there an assault weapon in the news the past few years? I must have missed it. IIRC, at least one of the Bundy guys in Oregon had an illegal fully automatic gun. And one of the Proud Boys caught in Portland had 1000 rounds with him. But yes, he probably just intended them for target practice, carefully squeezing off one round ever five seconds then leisurely changing his 10 round magazine for a fresh one. A semi sport rifle is not only not an 'assault' rifle but it is not a 'weapon of war' either. In all 193 or so countries, no military issues AR-15 or anything at all like it. Please be more specific. "Anything at all like it" is pretty vague. And an AR-15 looks a lot closer to an AK47 than to, say, a classic Marlin deer rifle or Winchester shotgun or almost any squirrel gun. Why do the AR and AK look so similar? What are the advantages of that geometry over that of a classic long gun? I can go into details but basically the Germans "discovered" that full sized infantry weapons and aimed fire wasn't as effective as simply blasting away and "inundating" the area with bullets. Apparently they first tried "sub-machine guns" firing a pistol cartridge and found that these were too short range for general combat and so built the Sturmgewehr 44 (assault rifle 44) which was a weapon capable of both semi and full automatic fire and use an intermediate size cartridge, longer range then the "sub-machine gun" cartridge and shorter then the full sized rifle cartridge. The StG44 was first used on the German Eastern Front and proved far superior to the older bolt action rifles. The German weapon then led to the Russian AK-47 and later to the M-16. The StG44 weighed 4.6 kg, was 37 inches long and had a 30 round magazine. The AK-47 weighed 3.4 kg, was 35 inches long and had a 30 round magazine. The StG44 had a rate of fire of 500-600 rounds/minute and the AK had a rate of 600 rpm. Re the "geometry" of the two, a traditional rifle is designed to be fired from the shoulder and the grip is "designed" to be held with the elbow at almost right angle the body. The assault rifles are designed to be fired from either the waist or the shoulder and the "pistol grip" works well in either position. More bull**** from an AF idiot that probably couldn't hit the side of a barn from the inside. What the Germans found like the Americans was that if they spent ammunition like that it required 55,000 rounds to kill one single soldier and they could not afford that sort of financial loss per casualty. |
#320
|
|||
|
|||
f Crazy eBay offers
On 4/22/2021 2:03 AM, John B. wrote:
Re the "geometry" of the two, a traditional rifle is designed to be fired from the shoulder and the grip is "designed" to be held with the elbow at almost right angle the body. The assault rifles are designed to be fired from either the waist or the shoulder and the "pistol grip" works well in either position. Exactly. And hunters or target shooters have no reason to fire from the waist, just as they have no reason to fire more than a very few rounds per minute. Those features are valuable only if you're trying to kill another person. Or if you're pretending to do so, for "practice." Which is juvenile macho craziness. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
LETTER - This cycling thing is a crazy idea. A crazy good one | Simon Mason[_6_] | UK | 9 | July 18th 20 05:17 PM |
Bicycle-induced psychotropic effects, or Hey, that crazy dude really is crazy | [email protected] | Racing | 7 | February 8th 06 03:17 PM |
Start Buying on eBay - eBay Shopping Tips & Tricks | [email protected] | Marketplace | 1 | January 15th 06 03:02 PM |
Am I crazy like a fox, or just plain crazy? | Brian Walker | General | 9 | September 27th 05 05:54 AM |
Decathlon offers | John Hearns | UK | 7 | July 14th 04 08:06 PM |