Crazy eBay offers

On 4/21/2021 10:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/21/2021 9:17 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Care to answer again, paying attention to the word
"geometry"? Why are ARs not shaped like a classic long gun?

The short muzzle and the pistol grip are beneficial for
whipping around in a close quarter firefight. The provisions
for large capacity magazines are useless for hunting, unless
you're hunting an armed enemy. The light weight can actually
be detrimental to accuracy. Field stripping is way more
useful in a long-term combat situation than on a day-long
hunting trip.

Guns truly optimized for hunting don't look like that. They
look like hunting guns have essentially always looked. Guns
for looking macho are shaped like the ones infantry now carry.


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.

Which is a Kunich-style deflection. Address the points I made above,
please.

Drop the 'appearance' argument. It's not definitive here.

Sorry, I was quite specific about the relevance of those design
features. I'm not about to stop mentioning them merely because you have
no effective rebuttal.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 8:49:06 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
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.

I see you and John are having a great time inventing stories again. No, an AR is NOT designed to shoot from the waist. It is designed to shoot from the shoulder more accurately. Try to learn something before your imagination runs wild.

On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 8:53:39 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/21/2021 10:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/21/2021 9:17 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Care to answer again, paying attention to the word
"geometry"? Why are ARs not shaped like a classic long gun?

The short muzzle and the pistol grip are beneficial for
whipping around in a close quarter firefight. The provisions
for large capacity magazines are useless for hunting, unless
you're hunting an armed enemy. The light weight can actually
be detrimental to accuracy. Field stripping is way more
useful in a long-term combat situation than on a day-long
hunting trip.

Guns truly optimized for hunting don't look like that. They
look like hunting guns have essentially always looked. Guns
for looking macho are shaped like the ones infantry now carry.


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.
Which is a Kunich-style deflection. Address the points I made above,
please.
Drop the 'appearance' argument. It's not definitive here.
Sorry, I was quite specific about the relevance of those design
features. I'm not about to stop mentioning them merely because you have
no effective rebuttal.

Frank, can you tell me what in he hell is optimized for hunting in a traditional rifle?. Those rifles are made to fire from a bench rest which does NOT occur in actual hunting conditions. Pistol grips allows more rapid aiming and firing while in normal hunting conditions which just happen to mimic combat conditions. Your inventive imagination is so corrupted by your extreme bias against things you are afraid of simply because you haven't the slightest experience with them makes one wonder why you don't crap your pants around fast cars.

On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 11:49:06 a.m. UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
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

You really should not disparage those who find enjoyment in something that you do not.

Many owners of military looking rifles enjoy the looks of the rifle and the shooting of them as a recreation pure and simple.

I still lament selling my FN L1A1 rifle that I'd added Canadian C1A1 parts to to make it look like the rifle I used in the armed forces.

Cheers

On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 11:49:01 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

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.


Well Frank you seem to think that riding a bicycle is a good thing and
I can find literally millions of USians who will argue that bicycles
are a "kid's toy" and, of course, they result in about 800 deaths a
year.

So if you can play with a "kid's toy" why can't someone else shoot an
AR-15?

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 11:53:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/21/2021 10:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/21/2021 9:17 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Care to answer again, paying attention to the word
"geometry"? Why are ARs not shaped like a classic long gun?

The short muzzle and the pistol grip are beneficial for
whipping around in a close quarter firefight. The provisions
for large capacity magazines are useless for hunting, unless
you're hunting an armed enemy. The light weight can actually
be detrimental to accuracy. Field stripping is way more
useful in a long-term combat situation than on a day-long
hunting trip.

Guns truly optimized for hunting don't look like that. They
look like hunting guns have essentially always looked. Guns
for looking macho are shaped like the ones infantry now carry.


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.

Which is a Kunich-style deflection. Address the points I made above,
please.

Drop the 'appearance' argument. It's not definitive here.

Sorry, I was quite specific about the relevance of those design
features. I'm not about to stop mentioning them merely because you have
no effective rebuttal.


But Frank, people do use the "assault rifle" type for hunting and
target shooting. Why do you feel that they don't?

I mean, after all you are riding around on a "kid's toy" and think it
is wonderful.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 1:03:25 AM UTC-5, 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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_42#...rld%20War%20II.
The German MG42 was a result. Full sized bullet machine gun firing 1200 rounds per minute. Suppressive fire.







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 Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 1:17:37 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:

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 :-)


I see the "Advantage, appropriateness" of such a law. AND the "Disadvantage, inappropriateness" of such a type of law. Regarding Singapore, apparently their dope law is effective in controlling dope use and distribution. But is popping a pill or shooting up of your own free will worthy of a death sentence? I would not want to argue it is. Now does the dealer deserve a death sentence? That might be a bit easier to argue in favor. Do we also bring back cutting off people's hands if they are a shoplifter? Now for rapists and sex molesters, it might be very appropriate to cut things off.





--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 3:11:31 AM UTC-5, Rolf Mantel wrote:
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

A German Army buying Israel Uzi guns. Maybe I'm the only one, but I chuckled when I read that.


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 Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 7:44:56 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
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'm going to keep arguing with you just for fun. :-)
I agree that an M-16 is not an AR-15. They are different. But saying the "selector switch" is what makes them different is similar to talking about pickup trucks. One F-150 is a two wheel drive. The other F-150 is a 4x4 drive. It has a selector switch in the cab to go from 2 wheel drive to 4 wheel drive. Are they different? Yes, one is a four wheel drive and the other isn't. I've driven both and find the four wheel drive more useful in more situations. Its not always or even frequently needed, but when it is needed, its great to have. Both are still half ton pickup trucks. They can have the same engines and accessories. I'm guessing back when pickups were first invented the two wheel drive came first. Then some years later someone figured out how to add four wheel drive to it. Maybe Jeeps and trucks in WW2 were four wheel only, no selector. Then someone figured out how to switch modes with those turning locks in the front hub. Then someone figured out how to do that with a lever in the cab. Then finally you could do it electronically by pushing a button in the cab. And Hi and Lo got added in there somewhere. Back to the rifles. They are different. Yes. But they are also the same too.






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.

I would not guess 38 revolvers have been issued to police since the 1980s started. You only see them in 1970s and earlier movies and the 1970s Hal Linden Barney Miller show.




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