Really, really dumb

On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 11:32:50 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/15/2020 11:53 PM, John B. wrote:

I've frequently mentioned that Singapore, as an example, has laws to
protect society while the U.S.has laws to protect the individual.

John, you first mock the idea of laws; then you turn around and praise
the strict laws and enforcement of Singapore.

It's looking like you don't really have a rational point. You're just
arguing to argue.

Nice try. You delete the majority of the message and seize on a single
paragraph.

But no, I don't mock the idea of laws, but I do mock your seeming
assertion that simply making a new law somehow, in some magically way,
will make everything wonderful.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 11:31:22 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

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.

Ah but... If "controlling gun ownership works much better" please
explain why Vermont with its minimal gun laws has a lower rate of
firearm fatalities that Washington D.C. with its stringent gun laws.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 11:26:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

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/


Nice try. Did you read the part that said:

"Henry Repeating Arms was started by Louis Imperato and his son
Anthony Imperato in Brooklyn, New York in 1996. The first model
produced was the Henry H001 Classic Lever Action .22 and the first
shipments were made in March 1997. The original corporate motto was
"Made in America and Priced Right".

Henry Repeating Arms takes its name from Benjamin Tyler Henry, the
inventor who patented the first repeating rifle in 1860, known as the
Henry rifle. There is no affiliation or lineage to Benjamin Tyler
Henry or to the New Haven Arms Company, who sold the original Henry
rifle from 1862 to 1864. Anthony Imperato secured the trademark to the
Henry name in 1996.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 10:44:20 PM UTC, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/16/2020 3:17 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/16/2020 2:12 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 4:02:31 PM UTC-8, Frank
Krygowski wrote:
tion, made in

Do you suppose there might be some difference in
lethality between the
Henry's 22 caliber bullet and that of the AR-15?

If not, I'm surprised that the military doesn't use Henry
22 rifles
exclusively. They're pretty inexpensive. Think of the tax
money to be saved!


Why do you continuously make straw man arguments. A .22
long rifle is at LEAST as deadly as the .223 AR-15.

Absolute total bull****. Read
https://www.thetrace.org/2017/06/phy...ssault-rifles/
starting at the heading "Velocity."

Sheesh.



.22LR vs .223 has had more study than you might think:

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/22...ginners-guide/

That's opinion. How about data? If you wade through the
famous FBI paper, they cover a lot of variables. excerpts:

"With the exceptions of hits to the brain or upper spinal
cord, the concept of reliable and reproducible immediate
incapacitation of the human target by gunshot wounds to the
torso is a myth.27 The human target is a complex and durable
one."

"A bullet simply cannot knock a man down. If it had the
energy to do so, then equal energy would be applied against
the shooter and he too would be knocked down."

gundata.org/images/fbi-handgun-ballistics.pdf



An experienced MD says:
"I have seen a .22 caliber bullet completely incapacitate
someone and a .45 ACP fail to achieve that result. People
and animals shot with 10mm rounds and .357 SIG rounds have
continued to run from the police. I have been on scene as a
tactical medical provider when a suicidal person shot
himself in the head with a .45 Colt round resulting in
instant death. And I have seen the same results in suicides
that used smaller calibers, including .22, .25, and .32. I
have also seen people hit with 9mm, .40, and .45 without so
much as staggering or slowing their verbal or physical
activities."
https://www.policemag.com/340890/sto...-and-realities

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

As everyone knows, South Africa is now the murder and rape capital of the world (well, that's if Sweden's "New Swedes" haven't overtaken them yet). A chum who lives down the road takes his family there to meet their relatives. He's a hard case, a sometime naval commando with almost as many medals as I won in hazardous political service. But he's amazed when at the airport his family tell him, "This is your armoured truck here." When he returns he tells me a story. There's this woman in his family's office, told by the men that the popgun in her bag won't stop a malefactor. But she's a smartarse and says she's not carrying a howitzer in her expensive bag; anyway, she's a dead shot on the range, so they leave off telling her to get a pistol with more stopping power. One day between the bus stop and her house she is accosted by a crim who tries to rape her. He's right close up, ripping her clothes, so she hits him with every bullet in the magazine. He finishes raping her and is last seen running away from a neighbour who came out of his house with a shotgun to see what the noise is about; the crim, of course never caught*, was seen sticking a finger into a hole spurting blood. My mate says, "Next time I go, I'll take my grandfather's sidearm from WW1." He shows it to me. It's a Webley .455 that'll rip the arm off a man. I don't imagine it is all that accurate at any distance, but a bullet from it just needs to hit anywhere to kill by trauma alone, and if it hits bone to start it tumbling, there'll be a right mess to clean up.

* Louis Theroux did a programme for the BBC on South Africa in which he interviewed one fellow who necklaced (killed by burning alive with a tyre filled with petrol around his neck) a cattle thief, and who told Theroux in all innocence as if this is an everyday occurrence, "The next day I went down to the police station and paid twenty-five Rand [maybe five American dollars, perhaps less; Slow Johnny can look it up for us] to the sergeant so they don't arrest me." That's because what he describes *is* an everyday occurrence. In the same programme was the sad fate of the Summit Club, where I once kept an apartment so I could use the sauna and the pool and the restaurant and pick up girls in the disco, which is now a burned-out hulk without electricity occupied by violent gangs, and a block of flats a couple of blocks away where a girlfriend once lived, and a short walk away the ruin of my house in what was once the most expensive real estate in the country, all of it seen on Theroux's film. From the pitch dark of the block of flats a man ran with a flap of skin hanging off his head. He told Theroux that someone just came up to him and hit him with a 2x4 with nails in it. He's running away from the hospital at the end of the block, either because the territory before it is held by another gang or because he doesn't think he'll get sewn up there. The Deputy Chief of Police was mounting a paramilitary operation to take back the block of flats. He told Theroux that he expected five or six police fatalities...When I was a boy we didn't lock the door of the house when we went away for a month at the beach, and if a single policeman was even bruised, they'd find the culprit and charge him -- and now it's like the third circle of hell. Looks like my luck was running true when I was exiled by the apartheid government, or I might still have been there trying to make sense of spiralling evil, which is always the byproduct of lawless chaos. You can probably get Theroux's programme on South Africa on YouTube or one of the streaming services. A friend who's a documentary maker tipped me off to make an effort to watch it when it was first broadcast; the BBC is a free-to-air national public service broadcaster, which we get relayed here by satellite.

AJ
You don't need a lot of guns to break down a society: a pervasive permissive attitude to lawbreaking will do the job just fine.

John B. wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 11:31:22 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

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.

Ah but... If "controlling gun ownership works much better" please
explain why Vermont with its minimal gun laws has a lower rate of
firearm fatalities that Washington D.C. with its stringent gun laws.
--
cheers,

John B.



Because in Vermont, everybody is out of gunshot range from everybody else,
so you couldn’t shoot somebody without having to drive somewhere first.

:-)

On Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 11:25:56 PM UTC, John B. wrote:

But yet the Israeli "Wrath of God" assassins who killed the Black
September terrorists used a .22 pistol as a matter of choice...
--
cheers,

John B.

Yes, but Israeli were highly trained soldier, given more training in Israeli Intelligence, and in the most characteristic of these cases, the first terrorist they topped in Rome, they were close enough to stretch out their arms and touch the barrels of their pistols to his chest.

In fact, if you know anything about it, you will also know, and mention, that what they actually preferred was not the pistol, but a bomb, among other reasons for the mental health of their people. That makes your statement:
But yet the Israeli "Wrath of God" assassins who killed the Black
September terrorists used a .22 pistol as a matter of choice...
into absolute nonsense. The truth would be more like, "If they could find no other way, they'd do their job with a small-calibre pistol up close to the terrorist." The senior people went to great lengths to find other ways.

Andre Jute
This the contemptible, ignorant bull**** you get when your Bible is Wikipedia

On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 07:26:00 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 8:48:36 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
snip

Actually I was talking about large magazines, which have been used on
.22 rifles for years. And I included a note (and labeling it so) that
large magazines had been used on one of the first repeating rifles
made in America, in 1860.

But not 100 rounds -- or more. Looking at it from a Second Amendment standpoint: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM3vlPPNFVM AR-15 variants are fun guns, but at some point, fun has to be balanced against public welfare -- kind of like we do with drinking and driving and basically everything else in the world. We even crack-down on religion at some point: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oregon-...healing-trial/

-- Jay Beattie.

I don't think anyone was thinking of a 100 round magazine.

While I didn't read all the various laws about magazine capacity the
few I did read used the number "10" as a sort of the dividing line.
However this was defined as a shoulder weapon as many commonly used
pistols today have a magazine holding more than 10 rounds. The Glock
19 for example, a very common choice of police departments, has a
standard 15 round magazine.

It might be interesting to know that a shotgun used for migratory bird
hunting, by federal law, is limited to 3 rounds, usually by use of a
plug in the magazine to restrict capacity to that number. I can't give
the specific date of this law but I have read that it dates to the
1930's.

Interestingly I have never heard anyone complain about that limit to
magazine capacity :-)

--
cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 16:44:11 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/16/2020 3:17 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/16/2020 2:12 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 4:02:31 PM UTC-8, Frank
Krygowski wrote:
tion, made in

Do you suppose there might be some difference in
lethality between the
Henry's 22 caliber bullet and that of the AR-15?

If not, I'm surprised that the military doesn't use Henry
22 rifles
exclusively. They're pretty inexpensive. Think of the tax
money to be saved!


Why do you continuously make straw man arguments. A .22
long rifle is at LEAST as deadly as the .223 AR-15.

Absolute total bull****. Read
https://www.thetrace.org/2017/06/phy...ssault-rifles/
starting at the heading "Velocity."

Sheesh.



.22LR vs .223 has had more study than you might think:

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/22...ginners-guide/

That's opinion. How about data? If you wade through the
famous FBI paper, they cover a lot of variables. excerpts:

"With the exceptions of hits to the brain or upper spinal
cord, the concept of reliable and reproducible immediate
incapacitation of the human target by gunshot wounds to the
torso is a myth.27 The human target is a complex and durable
one."

"A bullet simply cannot knock a man down. If it had the
energy to do so, then equal energy would be applied against
the shooter and he too would be knocked down."

gundata.org/images/fbi-handgun-ballistics.pdf



An experienced MD says:
"I have seen a .22 caliber bullet completely incapacitate
someone and a .45 ACP fail to achieve that result. People
and animals shot with 10mm rounds and .357 SIG rounds have
continued to run from the police. I have been on scene as a
tactical medical provider when a suicidal person shot
himself in the head with a .45 Colt round resulting in
instant death. And I have seen the same results in suicides
that used smaller calibers, including .22, .25, and .32. I
have also seen people hit with 9mm, .40, and .45 without so
much as staggering or slowing their verbal or physical
activities."
https://www.policemag.com/340890/sto...-and-realities

I believe that Colonel Charles Askins wrote of a fellow that was shot
in the head with a .25 colt and complained about a head ache all day
only to drop dead that evening :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 00:36:44 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 11:31:22 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

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.

Ah but... If "controlling gun ownership works much better" please
explain why Vermont with its minimal gun laws has a lower rate of
firearm fatalities that Washington D.C. with its stringent gun laws.
--
cheers,

John B.



Because in Vermont, everybody is out of gunshot range from everybody else,
so you couldn’t shoot somebody without having to drive somewhere first.

:-)

Hardly :-) But not having to live cheek to jowl with someone is one of
the beauties of the place.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 5:10:31 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 07:26:00 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 8:48:36 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
snip

Actually I was talking about large magazines, which have been used on
.22 rifles for years. And I included a note (and labeling it so) that
large magazines had been used on one of the first repeating rifles
made in America, in 1860.

But not 100 rounds -- or more. Looking at it from a Second Amendment standpoint: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM3vlPPNFVM AR-15 variants are fun guns, but at some point, fun has to be balanced against public welfare -- kind of like we do with drinking and driving and basically everything else in the world. We even crack-down on religion at some point: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oregon-...healing-trial/

-- Jay Beattie.

I don't think anyone was thinking of a 100 round magazine.

While I didn't read all the various laws about magazine capacity the
few I did read used the number "10" as a sort of the dividing line.
However this was defined as a shoulder weapon as many commonly used
pistols today have a magazine holding more than 10 rounds. The Glock
19 for example, a very common choice of police departments, has a
standard 15 round magazine.

It might be interesting to know that a shotgun used for migratory bird
hunting, by federal law, is limited to 3 rounds, usually by use of a
plug in the magazine to restrict capacity to that number. I can't give
the specific date of this law but I have read that it dates to the
1930's.

Interestingly I have never heard anyone complain about that limit to
magazine capacity :-)

FYI, there are lots of weapons restrictions in connection with taking game in Oregon. See e.g. https://www.dfw.state.or.us/resource...ns/weapons.asp Oregon also has certain hunts that are only open for muzzle loaders, so going old-school pays dividends.

Max five round capacity for semi-auto center fire except hunting squirrels. The AR-15 is a squirrel rifle. Aim for the head. https://myodfw.com/big-game-hunting/...-gray-squirrel

-- Jay Beattie.