|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#191
|
|||
|
|||
Really, really dumb
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 02:02:09 -0800, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 January 2020 04:08:57 UTC-5, news18 wrote: On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 22:50:52 -0800, wrote: Kind of like Donald "Bone Spurs" Dump loves the military. Loves to increase its budget at an astronomical rate. Loves to pardon soldiers convicted in a trial of murdering a prisoner. Loves to use the military to threaten any and every other country. Has any Dump family member ever been in the military? 2What an absolutyly dumb question. The military is not there to be served in, but to protect the families economic interests. Remember his grandpappy started by selling "road kill" and squatting. Our Prime Minister's father hid during WW2 so he wouldn't have to be in the military. How such people can t hen lead a country's military or choose a qualified defense minister is beyond me. Then again, the titular head of Canada is actually the Queen. Our current Prime Minister would be a joke if things weren't so serious. Cheers Same tit here and I'm happy to keep it that way when the alternative is a home grown version of Trump. Oh wait, we have one as PM. |
Ads |
#192
|
|||
|
|||
Really, really dumb
On 1/14/2020 9:32 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/14/2020 8:44 PM, John B. wrote: On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 19:36:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/14/2020 6:25 PM, John B. wrote: On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 17:09:07 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/14/2020 4:06 PM, Radey Shouman wrote: Proficiency in using the long bow required a lot of target practice. This took time, and required that low born yeomen have the weapons ready at home. Agreed. Frank would have us believe that shooting at targets is just a game, but of course it has been promoted for military readiness throughout history. Note that the two propositions are not mutually exclusive. Yes, target shooting has historically been promoted for military readiness. But (for example) Boy Scouts earning their Rifle merit badge are never told "This is in case there's a war." Almost all American target shooting is for fun, for competition (i.e. a game) or training for hunting. (I've done it just for fun.) The most common counterexample is police training. But that wouldn't be nearly as necessary if we had rational gun control in this country. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/w...terror-n737551 Your reference article is just a tad misleading as it refers to the "U.K." police and states that a large percent are not armed which is a nice end run around the fact that in Northern Ireland, a part of the U.K., all police are armed. But Yes, make a law and everything will be O.K. Right? Do you know about the so called Sullivan Act ? " The Sullivan Act is a gun control law in New York State that took effect in 1911. The law required licenses for New Yorkers to possess firearms small enough to be concealed. Private possession of such firearms without a license was a misdemeanor, and carrying them in public was a felony." So every is hunky-dory and there has been no gun crime in the state of New York since 1911? So what's your position, John? Abolish all laws? I am pointing out that your often mentioned gun control laws do not necessarily produce what they are intended to produce. I know that, John. Andrew pulls the same trick from time to time. Any law you can name gets violated from time to time. But that certainly doesn't mean we must do away with all laws. I assume you agree, since you frequently praise the strict laws in Singapore. I'm just an observer. People disregard whole areas of law and yet the ban on machine guns, despite simple attainable paths to same with widely popular platforms, is largely obeyed. Where the populace is in general agreement, laws are obeyed and where not, often not. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#194
|
|||
|
|||
Really, really dumb
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. |
#195
|
|||
|
|||
Really, really dumb
On 1/14/2020 11:24 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 January 2020 22:36:21 UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/14/2020 10:13 PM, AMuzi wrote: Here's the world in which we actually live: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...ta-table-8.xls Note edged weapons beat rifles 5 to 1. Only if you ignore the vast unknown "type not stated." -- - Frank Krygowski So you're saying that the "vast unknown type note stated" were all or mostly firearm related? As you often demand, where's your proof of that? I'm saying some proportion of those unknowns were the guns we're talking about. We could speculate on how many, but that might require gasp! math. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#196
|
|||
|
|||
Really, really dumb
On 1/14/2020 11:54 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 21:13:17 -0600, AMuzi wrote: On 1/14/2020 8:13 PM, Radey Shouman wrote: Frank Krygowski writes: [...] There are many guns optimized for more civilized uses - shotguns optimized for hunting birds, long range hunting rifles for elk at 1000 yards, ordinary hunting rifles (like a Ruger 10/22 for example), competition target rifles, ordinary 0.22s that are good at tin cans, etc. The Ruger 10/22 is a nice, practical choice. I bought one myself. I'm guessing you mention it specifically because you have one or have used one. But. It's a semi-automatic weapon. The standard magazine is 10 rounds, but larger ones are readily available. It does take a much less powerful cartridge than the AR-15, but, really, it works just the same, at least from the operator's perspective. Ruger also makes the mini-14, which is a semi-auto chambered in .223, like the AR-15, but with wood furniture and no carry handle on top. Now, you could have chosen any of a multitude of rifles with falling block, bolt, or pump action, but for *some* reason you chose the 10/22. Why? Didn't you consider that you and yours might be irrestibly tempted to hose down the Ohio countryside with semi-auto fire? Wait. You might have left the evil magazine at home, or thrown it in the trash, and loaded the rifle by hand, single shot. Easy enough if your fingers are small. Enquiring minds want to know. Here's the world in which we actually live: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...ta-table-8.xls Note edged weapons beat rifles 5 to 1. Given Frank's battle-cry "ban the AR-15" it is interesting to see that some 297 murders were commented with rifles, or in other words could have been commented with an AR-15, amounted to 2.8% of the total firearm deaths while those commented with hand guns, i.e., pistols, which Frank never mentions amounted to 64%. I never mention everything, John. In fact, nobody does. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#197
|
|||
|
|||
Really, really dumb
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. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#198
|
|||
|
|||
Really, really dumb
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? -- cheers, John B. |
#199
|
|||
|
|||
Really, really dumb
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 :-) -- cheers, John B. |
#200
|
|||
|
|||
Really, really dumb
On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 1:53:47 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/14/2020 4:24 PM, wrote: So you don't want someone protecting their home or business against multiple invaders with sufficient ammunition huh? https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...C9DC&FORM=VIRE Apparently Tom has "good guy with a gun" fantasies. He envisions himself whipping out an AR-15 from under his trench coat and blowing away those bad guys. In his fantasy, medals for heroism would follow. There are many millions of those guns in the U.S. Why wasn't one used to stop that theft, Tom? How does "good guy with a gun" go wrong so frequently? And how does Canada get by without far fewer of these things in circulation? Canada doesn't seem to be at the mercy of armed robbers. Quite the opposite, in fact. https://theconversation.com/a-short-...-canada-123959 -- - Frank Krygowski I keep a police .38 from about 1935 around and in case you are unaware, if someone is closer than 10 feet you can probably kill them before they can even point an AR-15. I don't need guns or knives or bows or arrows but I know how to use them all. You on the other hand have a sick imagination that you like to imagine others have as well. |
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 |