|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#211
|
|||
|
|||
Really, really dumb
On Wednesday, 15 January 2020 21:15:56 UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 16:01:35 -0800, "Mark J." wrote: On 1/15/2020 2:51 PM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 12:10:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/15/2020 4:58 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote: Here in Canada we have all sorts of gun control laws but they don't seem to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals or soon to be criminals; they just keep or remove them from the hands of law abiding citizens. Really? Your gun laws don't work? Look at some comparative data: https://www.nationmaster.com/country.../Violent-crime No laws are perfect. But that doesn't mean laws are useless. It looks to me like Canada's gun laws are doing a pretty good job - or at least, way better than those of the U.S. Yup, make a law and everyrthing will come up roses... But Frank, if that is true why is it that Vermont, with it's nearly non existant gun laws has a murder by firearms rate of 1.3/100,000 while Washing D.C. with rather restrictive gun laws has a firearm murder rate of 18/100,000? Could the fact that DC is essentially 100% urban and Vermont is the second most rural state [1] be germane? [1] Per https://vermontbiz.com/news/march/gr...ond-most-rural PS - Maybe we could argue about greased tapers, disc brakes, or -gasp- even helmets? It would be a little more on-topic. Mark J. There are undoubtidly many reasons why Washington, D.C., for example, has a high firearm murder rate and populatiion density may well be a part of it. My reply was specifically to Franks assertion that if we could just have more gun law that everything would be wonderful, wonderful. I was pointing out that simply passing laws does not solve a problem. -- cheers, John B. Yes it does. It disarms the law abiding citizens so that the criminals won't have any opposition when committing crimes. LOL The way things are here the criminals have more rights under the law than what their victims do. Cheers |
Ads |
#212
|
|||
|
|||
Really, really dumb
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 18:44:50 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 1/15/2020 5:51 PM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 12:10:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/15/2020 4:58 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote: Here in Canada we have all sorts of gun control laws but they don't seem to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals or soon to be criminals; they just keep or remove them from the hands of law abiding citizens. Really? Your gun laws don't work? Look at some comparative data: https://www.nationmaster.com/country.../Violent-crime No laws are perfect. But that doesn't mean laws are useless. It looks to me like Canada's gun laws are doing a pretty good job - or at least, way better than those of the U.S. Yup, make a law and everyrthing will come up roses... But Frank, if that is true why is it that Vermont, with it's nearly non existant gun laws has a murder by firearms rate of 1.3/100,000 while Washing D.C. with rather restrictive gun laws has a firearm murder rate of 18/100,000? Gun violence is not a one-variable problem, John. Yes, that makes it complicated. But that doesn't mean the problem shouldn't be addressed. I am aware of that. But that has not been what you have been saying. You have repeatedly advocated laws with the inference that if we could only find the right law everything would be wonderful, wonderful. I can only speculate on how well you understand the problem but so far it appears to be simply one more of your whims like your argument that bikes just must be capable of being fitted with 28mm tires. From what I've read on this site regarding 28mm tires you want them and you recommended them to some lady. The rest of the posters seems quite happy with what they have. So, would one say that it is a conspiracy of the advertising fraternity to force us unlettered chaps to use skinny tires? Or pass more laws? Or is it simply Frank attempting to dictate his whims to the multitude? -- cheers, John B. |
#213
|
|||
|
|||
Really, really dumb
On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 9:10:31 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 19:02:28 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/15/2020 5:59 PM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 06:33:20 -0800 (PST), jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 9:54:26 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote: 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] FYI. https://lawcenter.giffords.org/dunca...pacity-limits/ I haven't looked at the Ninth Circuit docket to see where this case stands. -- Jay Beattie. Given that .22 caliber rifles with tube magazines holding more than 10 rounds have been manufactured for years and years the banning of magazines simply on the number of cartridges held might be a bit problematic. Note: The Henry rifle, the first lever action, made in the mid 1800's held 16 rounds :-) Do you suppose there might be some difference in lethality between the Henry's 22 caliber bullet and that of the AR-15? Geeze Frank, you gotta do a little research. The Henry rifle of 1860 fired a .44 caliber bullet at 1,125 ft/sec with a muzzle energy of 568 ft.lbs. Approximately the same power as the .357 magnum pistol cartridge. The .357 magnum was the most powerful handgun made, until about 1955 when the .44 magnum was introduced. The question then is, in modern terms, a 357 magnum more deadly then the 5.65 x 56 NATO that was the original cartridge that the AR-15 was designed for? Well, in technical terms the 5.65 has a muzzle energy roughly 3 times the power of the .357 magnum. But is this significant? The wound channels are more severe with the AR-15 but the .357 will completely penetrate the thickest part of your body. An example: using my father's 25-06, a wildcat using a .25 caliber bullet and a 30-06 case, I once hit a woodchuck in the chest area and literally blew it into two pieces. Using my own 22-250 wildcat I have hit woodchucks in the chest area and blew abut 50% of the chest area away. Is one woodchuck more dead than the other?. 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! Err... a 1860 model Henry sells for $39,999.99 these days. See https://www.gunsinternational.com/gu...c502_p1_o6.cfm and a M-16 is about $700, as made by Remington under contract to the Army. Come on, John, you're changing the subject as quickly as Tom! Above, you said "Given that .22 caliber rifles with tube magazines holding more than 10 rounds have been manufactured for years and years the banning of magazines simply on the number of cartridges held might be a bit problematic." You talked about .22 caliber rifles. So I talked about .22 caliber Henry rifles. Now you're jumping to .44 and .357, 1860 antiques, etc. ISTR you told Tom that changing the subject was a sign of losing a debate. Think about that. - Frank Krygowski |
#214
|
|||
|
|||
Really, really dumb
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 20:02:24 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote: On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 9:10:31 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote: On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 19:02:28 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/15/2020 5:59 PM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 06:33:20 -0800 (PST), jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 9:54:26 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote: 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] FYI. https://lawcenter.giffords.org/dunca...pacity-limits/ I haven't looked at the Ninth Circuit docket to see where this case stands. -- Jay Beattie. Given that .22 caliber rifles with tube magazines holding more than 10 rounds have been manufactured for years and years the banning of magazines simply on the number of cartridges held might be a bit problematic. Note: The Henry rifle, the first lever action, made in the mid 1800's held 16 rounds :-) Do you suppose there might be some difference in lethality between the Henry's 22 caliber bullet and that of the AR-15? Geeze Frank, you gotta do a little research. The Henry rifle of 1860 fired a .44 caliber bullet at 1,125 ft/sec with a muzzle energy of 568 ft.lbs. Approximately the same power as the .357 magnum pistol cartridge. The .357 magnum was the most powerful handgun made, until about 1955 when the .44 magnum was introduced. The question then is, in modern terms, a 357 magnum more deadly then the 5.65 x 56 NATO that was the original cartridge that the AR-15 was designed for? Well, in technical terms the 5.65 has a muzzle energy roughly 3 times the power of the .357 magnum. But is this significant? The wound channels are more severe with the AR-15 but the .357 will completely penetrate the thickest part of your body. An example: using my father's 25-06, a wildcat using a .25 caliber bullet and a 30-06 case, I once hit a woodchuck in the chest area and literally blew it into two pieces. Using my own 22-250 wildcat I have hit woodchucks in the chest area and blew abut 50% of the chest area away. Is one woodchuck more dead than the other?. 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! Err... a 1860 model Henry sells for $39,999.99 these days. See https://www.gunsinternational.com/gu...c502_p1_o6.cfm and a M-16 is about $700, as made by Remington under contract to the Army. Come on, John, you're changing the subject as quickly as Tom! Above, you said "Given that .22 caliber rifles with tube magazines holding more than 10 rounds have been manufactured for years and years the banning of magazines simply on the number of cartridges held might be a bit problematic." No Frank. I said (copied from above) Given that .22 caliber rifles with tube magazines holding more than 10 rounds have been manufactured for years and years the banning of magazines simply on the number of cartridges held might be a bit problematic. Note: The Henry rifle, the first lever action, made in the mid 1800's held 16 rounds :-) You talked about .22 caliber rifles. So I talked about .22 caliber Henry rifles. Now you're jumping to .44 and .357, 1860 antiques, etc. 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. You then assumed, for whatever reason, that a Henry .22 ( a rifle that has never existed) was the subject under discussion and asked, "Do you suppose there might be some difference in lethality between the Henry's 22 caliber bullet and that of the AR-15?" I responded based on the assumption that when you said "Henry" you knew what you were talking about and replied comparing the Henry to the AR-15. So I will admit that I made a mistake... In assuming that you knew what you were talking about. Your present posts vividly demonstrates that you do not. ISTR you told Tom that changing the subject was a sign of losing a debate. Think about that. - Frank Krygowski -- cheers, John B. |
#215
|
|||
|
|||
Really, really dumb
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 18:41:51 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote: On Wednesday, 15 January 2020 21:15:56 UTC-5, John B. wrote: On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 16:01:35 -0800, "Mark J." wrote: On 1/15/2020 2:51 PM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 12:10:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/15/2020 4:58 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote: Here in Canada we have all sorts of gun control laws but they don't seem to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals or soon to be criminals; they just keep or remove them from the hands of law abiding citizens. Really? Your gun laws don't work? Look at some comparative data: https://www.nationmaster.com/country.../Violent-crime No laws are perfect. But that doesn't mean laws are useless. It looks to me like Canada's gun laws are doing a pretty good job - or at least, way better than those of the U.S. Yup, make a law and everyrthing will come up roses... But Frank, if that is true why is it that Vermont, with it's nearly non existant gun laws has a murder by firearms rate of 1.3/100,000 while Washing D.C. with rather restrictive gun laws has a firearm murder rate of 18/100,000? Could the fact that DC is essentially 100% urban and Vermont is the second most rural state [1] be germane? [1] Per https://vermontbiz.com/news/march/gr...ond-most-rural PS - Maybe we could argue about greased tapers, disc brakes, or -gasp- even helmets? It would be a little more on-topic. Mark J. There are undoubtidly many reasons why Washington, D.C., for example, has a high firearm murder rate and populatiion density may well be a part of it. My reply was specifically to Franks assertion that if we could just have more gun law that everything would be wonderful, wonderful. I was pointing out that simply passing laws does not solve a problem. -- cheers, John B. Yes it does. It disarms the law abiding citizens so that the criminals won't have any opposition when committing crimes. LOL The way things are here the criminals have more rights under the law than what their victims do. Cheers I've frequently mentioned that Singapore, as an example, has laws to protect society while the U.S.has laws to protect the individual. -- cheers, John B. |
#216
|
|||
|
|||
Really, really dumb
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. |
#217
|
|||
|
|||
Really, really dumb
On Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 2:41:54 AM UTC, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 January 2020 21:15:56 UTC-5, John B. wrote: On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 16:01:35 -0800, "Mark J." wrote: On 1/15/2020 2:51 PM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 12:10:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/15/2020 4:58 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote: Here in Canada we have all sorts of gun control laws but they don't seem to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals or soon to be criminals; they just keep or remove them from the hands of law abiding citizens. Really? Your gun laws don't work? Look at some comparative data: https://www.nationmaster.com/country.../Violent-crime No laws are perfect. But that doesn't mean laws are useless. It looks to me like Canada's gun laws are doing a pretty good job - or at least, way better than those of the U.S. Yup, make a law and everyrthing will come up roses... But Frank, if that is true why is it that Vermont, with it's nearly non existant gun laws has a murder by firearms rate of 1.3/100,000 while Washing D.C. with rather restrictive gun laws has a firearm murder rate of 18/100,000? Could the fact that DC is essentially 100% urban and Vermont is the second most rural state [1] be germane? [1] Per https://vermontbiz.com/news/march/gr...ond-most-rural PS - Maybe we could argue about greased tapers, disc brakes, or -gasp- even helmets? It would be a little more on-topic. Mark J. There are undoubtidly many reasons why Washington, D.C., for example, has a high firearm murder rate and populatiion density may well be a part of it. My reply was specifically to Franks assertion that if we could just have more gun law that everything would be wonderful, wonderful. I was pointing out that simply passing laws does not solve a problem. -- cheers, John B. Yes it does. It disarms the law abiding citizens so that the criminals won't have any opposition when committing crimes. LOL The way things are here the criminals have more rights under the law than what their victims do. Cheers What does this interminable thread have to do with cycling, eh, Ridealot? Andre Jute Always on topic -- eventually |
#218
|
|||
|
|||
Really, really dumb
On 1/15/2020 11:48 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 20:02:24 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski wrote: On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 9:10:31 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote: On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 19:02:28 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/15/2020 5:59 PM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 06:33:20 -0800 (PST), jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 9:54:26 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote: 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] FYI. https://lawcenter.giffords.org/dunca...pacity-limits/ I haven't looked at the Ninth Circuit docket to see where this case stands. -- Jay Beattie. Given that .22 caliber rifles with tube magazines holding more than 10 rounds have been manufactured for years and years the banning of magazines simply on the number of cartridges held might be a bit problematic. Note: The Henry rifle, the first lever action, made in the mid 1800's held 16 rounds :-) Do you suppose there might be some difference in lethality between the Henry's 22 caliber bullet and that of the AR-15? Geeze Frank, you gotta do a little research. The Henry rifle of 1860 fired a .44 caliber bullet at 1,125 ft/sec with a muzzle energy of 568 ft.lbs. Approximately the same power as the .357 magnum pistol cartridge. The .357 magnum was the most powerful handgun made, until about 1955 when the .44 magnum was introduced. The question then is, in modern terms, a 357 magnum more deadly then the 5.65 x 56 NATO that was the original cartridge that the AR-15 was designed for? Well, in technical terms the 5.65 has a muzzle energy roughly 3 times the power of the .357 magnum. But is this significant? The wound channels are more severe with the AR-15 but the .357 will completely penetrate the thickest part of your body. An example: using my father's 25-06, a wildcat using a .25 caliber bullet and a 30-06 case, I once hit a woodchuck in the chest area and literally blew it into two pieces. Using my own 22-250 wildcat I have hit woodchucks in the chest area and blew abut 50% of the chest area away. Is one woodchuck more dead than the other?. 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! Err... a 1860 model Henry sells for $39,999.99 these days. See https://www.gunsinternational.com/gu...c502_p1_o6.cfm and a M-16 is about $700, as made by Remington under contract to the Army. Come on, John, you're changing the subject as quickly as Tom! Above, you said "Given that .22 caliber rifles with tube magazines holding more than 10 rounds have been manufactured for years and years the banning of magazines simply on the number of cartridges held might be a bit problematic." No Frank. I said (copied from above) Given that .22 caliber rifles with tube magazines holding more than 10 rounds have been manufactured for years and years the banning of magazines simply on the number of cartridges held might be a bit problematic. Note: The Henry rifle, the first lever action, made in the mid 1800's held 16 rounds :-) You talked about .22 caliber rifles. So I talked about .22 caliber Henry rifles. Now you're jumping to .44 and .357, 1860 antiques, etc. 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. 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/ -- - Frank Krygowski |
#219
|
|||
|
|||
Really, really dumb
On 1/15/2020 9:15 PM, John B. wrote:
My reply was specifically to Franks assertion that if we could just have more gun law that everything would be wonderful, wonderful. Let's see a direct quote of me saying that, please. It will be difficult, of course, because I never did say that. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#220
|
|||
|
|||
Really, really dumb
On 1/15/2020 9:41 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
Yes it does. It disarms the law abiding citizens so that the criminals won't have any opposition when committing crimes. LOL The way things are here the criminals have more rights under the law than what their victims do. Whatever you say, it's undeniable that Canada has much stricter gun laws than the U.S. and also has far less gun violence than the U.S. It seems controlling gun ownership works much better than arming the population in case they have to defend against criminals. -- - Frank Krygowski |
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 |