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.

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.

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.

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.

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

On 4/21/2021 10:53 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 5:55:32 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
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.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44
"The StG 44 (abbreviation of Sturmgewehr 44, "assault rifle 44") is a German selective-fire assault rifle developed during World War II by Hugo Schmeisser."
"The StG 44 was the first successful assault rifle, with features including an intermediate cartridge, controllable automatic fire, a more compact design than a battle rifle with a higher rate of fire, and being designed primarily for hitting targets within a few hundred metres."
"The StG largely influenced the Soviet AK-47, introduced three years after the war concluded."

The M-16 and AR-15 rifles came about because of the StG 44 and AK-47.




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.


Andy, I know you know this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_style_rifle
"The Colt AR-15 is closely related to the military M16 and M4 Carbine rifles, which all share the same core design and have the same operating principle. The term "AR-15" is now most-commonly used to refer only to the civilian variants of the rifle which lack the fully automatic function.
In 1956, ArmaLite designed a lightweight selective fire rifle for military use and designated it the ArmaLite model 15, or AR-15."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle
"The M16 rifle, officially designated Rifle, Caliber 5.56 mm, M16, is a family of military rifles adapted from the ArmaLite AR-15 rifle for the United States military."

The "automatic" version of the AR-15 is the M-16 rifle issued to US military personnel since the 1960s. As for no military issuing AR-15 type rifles, I would suspect many militaries around the world do issue semi-automatic only rifles to some of their troops. Not every troop needs an automatic machine gun rifle. A one shot at a time rifle is more appropriate in certain positions. And militaries will have that type of rifle to issue when needed.




Stolen pistols are another thing altogether.

We do not disagree. Civilian models do not have a selector
and an M-16 is not an AR-15 despite similarities.


I know a Special Forces veteran who preferred and
effectively used a .22 rifle in jungle because they are
quiet. That's a specialty application. MPs until recently
carried .38 Police revolvers, another specialty weapon not
regular issue.

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

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

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?

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.

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