Crazy eBay offers

On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 10:03:43 PM UTC-5, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 10:25:39 p.m. UTC-4, wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M134_Minigun
The link above is for the Army, Air Force, Navy minigun. It shoots 2000-6000 rounds per minute of 5.56 Nato bullets. They first went into use in early 1960s during the Vietnam war. They were used on helicopters and airplanes to give supporting fire for ground troops. Being a former Air Force personnel as you claim, I am sure you are an expert on these guns. 2000-6000 rounds per minute rate of fire. Apparently the Army and Air Force did not know as much as you do and were happy and content to waste lots and lots of bullets. These miniguns are still in widespread use throughout the militaries around the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M61_Vulcan
The above link is for the Vulcan gun. It fires 6000 rounds per minute. Each round is 20mm diameter. It was created in 1946 but did not see use until the mid 1960s. Currently made by General Dynamics. Its used on the infamous A-10 Warthog airplane. The A-10 fires uranium armor piercing bullets at enemy tanks. It has many other uses too. Navy ships and armored vehicles and helicopters too. Firing 6000 rounds per minute means a whole lot of bullets are going to miss their target. Lot of wasted bullets. Expensive to waste so many bullets. Shells might be a better word to use than bullets. Its good to know you are an expert and can tell the US military and many other militaries around the world that they are wasting money by firing so many bullets/shells.
The A-10 Warthog gun (actually cannon) is 30mm not 20mm. That's quite a difference in destructive power.


True. I found the link to the M61 Vulcan gun in my search for miniguns and suppressive fire. It does fire 20mm rounds. And it only has 6 barrels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M61_Vulcan

The A-10 Warthog fires the 30mm shells from the GAU-8 gun. 7 barrels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_...te%20of%20fire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairch...Thunderbolt_II

On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 08:01:39 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

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.

"couldn't hit the side of a barn from the inside"?? It probably
doesn't mean anything to anyone as stupid as you are but I could "hit"
well enough to be selected to shoot on the Strategic Air Command Team
at the inter service pistol matches in about 1964 - 65. Had I wanted
to pursue it the next step would be to try out for the U.S. Air Force
pistol team.

As for "required 55,000 rounds to kill one single soldier" you simply
don't know what you are talking about or are deliberately trying to
warp figures to match your delusions.

The numbers come from the amount of ammunition expended versus the
number of enemy deaths. If you have ever been around any actual combat
you might understand, Everyone is firing full automatic, three machine
guns sweeping the bush with the hope of hitting somebody, Mortars
lobbing rounds into the trees.

I was at a Special Forces camp where they fired the machine guns on
the parameter periodically all night long. I thought we were being
attacked and got all panicky and was told that no, they didn't know if
anyone was out there and just blasted off some rounds to keep their
heads down if there were.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 20:13:30 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/22/2021 7:45 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 9:58:37 AM UTC-5, wrote:
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?

A knife is dangerous too. Like your 30 gallons of gasoline. But I use it to cut up my potatoes when boiling them to make mashed potatoes. I love mashed potatoes. When I was a kid my Mom made milk gravy from the grease drippings from fried chicken. Added flour and milk to the electric skillet after cooking fried chicken. I'd consider that gravy on mashed potatoes right up there with gourmet food.

Again Tom, you seem to miss the point. The gun and ammunition are so easy to use for killing. Gasoline is dangerous. It can explode and start fires. But gas explosions or fires don't kill many people. You live in California where you burn up a million square miles of land each year. But the fires don't kill very many people. Kind of like all your earthquakes don't really kill many people. A few. And knives are or can be deadly. Yes. But you can only kill one person at a time and you have to be real close. There is a reason all armies today on the planet have guns, not just knives and swords. Imagine if the Las Vegas killer from October 1, 2017 who killed about 60 people from the hotel window into the concert stadium. If he only had a knife, all the people would be alive. He would have had a hard time even breaking the glass of his window with just a knife. He could have still murdered the cleaning maid with his knife. But 1 murdered compared to 61 murdered and 867
injured, 411 by gunfire, are not exactly comparable. But maybe a Trumper thinks they are identical since math and numbers are fake.

Plus (yet again) I think in terms of benefits vs. detriments. Knives'
benefits are their use probably a dozen times a day by most people for
all sorts of practical purposes. Their detriments, a relatively small
number of killings, are less than their benefits. Those who disagree are
free to get rid of all their knives, of course.

Those guns optimized for killing people (as opposed to hunting) have no
practical purpose. Most don't even make good hunting weapons. Their
detriment is, in the U.S., tens of thousands of annual gun deaths, plus
much deterioration of neighborhoods and society. And even those who
choose to be without guns are often subjected to the detriments.

As a simple comparison: Many countries, with Canada being the closest,
heavily restrict the types of guns defended here by certain posters.
What detriments does Canada suffer as a result? How about Britain?

I don't see any such problems in those countries. But we have a hell of
a gun problem in the U.S.

Your fetish is showing. Have a look at the FBI statistics...
Relatively few murders are done with rifles.

Expanded Homicide Data Table 11
Murder Circumstances by Weapon, 2019

Total Firearm homicides 10,258
Weapon
Handgun - 6,368
Rifle - 264
Shotgun - 200
Not reported - 3326

And here comes the curve ball Frank. Are you ready"?

Knives of other cutting instruments - 1,476
Blunt Instruments, hammers, clubs, etc. - 397
Hands, fists and feet - 597

You see knives, axes and so on kill five and a half times as many as
the rifles that haunt your delusions. AND hammers and clubs kill 50%
more and hands and feet kill 2 and a quarter as many.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 15:58:08 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

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.


Yes, I guess I wasn't accurate in my description. When I said
"weapons" I should have elaborated and said something like personal or
maybe rifle like, or something.








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.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 16:05:53 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

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.


Re Singapore they don't hang you for popping a pill, that is only a
prison sentence. It is the "dealers" that get hung. If they catch you
with dope they send the dope to the National Laboratory where it is
purified and if you were in possession of a certain amount of the pure
drug it is evidence that you are a dealer. Possession of 30 grams of
cocaine or 200 grams of cannabis resin or 250 grams of
methamphetamine, and other drugs I didn't list is a mandatory death
sentence.. If you posses a lesser quantity penalties range from fines
of up to $20,000 to a maximum of ten years in prison.

The result is that there is almost no drug use in Singapore.

Other things that they do... if you are seen holding your hand phone
up to your face while driving a car it is an automatic $1,000 fine. If
you spit on the sidewalk $1,000. The results is that nobody talks on
hand phones while driving and people don't spit on sidewalks :-)

How do the Singaporeans react to all this? The People's Action Party
(PAP) has won every election since the first one in 1959. When I lived
there was occasionally 1 or maybe 2 opposition members in the
parliament and today I doubt if there are many more.

The incarceration rate in Singapore is 195/100,000 population and in
the U.S. it is 639/100,000. In the U.K it is 338.100,000.
--
Cheers,

John B.

Am 23.04.2021 um 01:09 schrieb :
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.

In return, the Israeli Navy iuses German submarines
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin-class_submarine

(at 30% discount thanks to the "special relationship").
https://www.dw.com/de/deutscher-u-boot-deal-mit-israel-besiegelt/a-41076865

On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 16:09:33 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

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.

Well the guy that designed it, Uziel "Uzi" Gal, was a German... or was
until he left the country in 1933. He later moved to the U.S. and
apparently was instrumental in designing the Ruger MP9.



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.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 4/22/2021 9:25 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 10:01:42 AM UTC-5, wrote:
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.

Tom, you are truly amazing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M134_Minigun
The link above is for the Army, Air Force, Navy minigun. It shoots 2000-6000 rounds per minute of 5.56 Nato bullets. They first went into use in early 1960s during the Vietnam war. They were used on helicopters and airplanes to give supporting fire for ground troops. Being a former Air Force personnel as you claim, I am sure you are an expert on these guns. 2000-6000 rounds per minute rate of fire. Apparently the Army and Air Force did not know as much as you do and were happy and content to waste lots and lots of bullets. These miniguns are still in widespread use throughout the militaries around the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M61_Vulcan
The above link is for the Vulcan gun. It fires 6000 rounds per minute. Each round is 20mm diameter. It was created in 1946 but did not see use until the mid 1960s. Currently made by General Dynamics. Its used on the infamous A-10 Warthog airplane. The A-10 fires uranium armor piercing bullets at enemy tanks. It has many other uses too. Navy ships and armored vehicles and helicopters too. Firing 6000 rounds per minute means a whole lot of bullets are going to miss their target. Lot of wasted bullets. Expensive to waste so many bullets. Shells might be a better word to use than bullets. Its good to know you are an expert and can tell the US military and many other militaries around the world that they are wasting money by firing so many bullets/shells.


Ingenious devices. Is this a great country or what?

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

On 4/22/2021 9:56 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 7:45:11 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/22/2021 6:29 PM, wrote:
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 tha
t 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.



Your comparison to 2WD and 4WD Fords misses the $200 tax
stamp, 12 to 15 month investigation before delivery,
fingerprints and agreeing to 'any time any place' ATF
inspection (which they really actually do, unannounced, in
your home, from time to time). There are very good reasons
that these are rare in civilian hands.


Well, you do have to pay an extra $2000-3000-4000-5000 extra for the 4x4 capability. Less wait time and no Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms inspection afterwards. Not sure if the state charges more for a vehicle registration.



I'm not bitching about the protocol today, merely noting
that 'assault weapons' are a rare thing indeed and virtually
never involved in mayhem or crime of any type. Invoking the
term is a nearly 'Godwin' moment.

" 'assault weapons' are a rare thing indeed and virtually never involved in mayhem or crime of any type."
???????????

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_s..._United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting
"His arsenal of weapons, associated equipment and ammunition included fourteen AR-15 rifles (all of which were equipped with bump stocks and twelve of which had 100-round magazines), eight AR-10-type rifles, a bolt-action rifle, and a revolver.[20] A bump stock modifies a semi-automatic weapon so that it can shoot in rapid succession, mimicking automatic fire." "he fired more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition from his 32nd floor suites in the Mandalay Bay Hotel, which killed 60 people[a] and wounded 411, with the ensuing panic bringing the injury total to 867."
The Las Vegas mass shooting killed 59. Oct 1, 2017.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orland...tclub_shooting
"armed with a SIG Sauer MCX[7] semi-automatic rifle and a 9mm Glock 17 semi-automatic pistol." "In less than five minutes, Mateen had fired approximately 200 rounds, pausing only to reload."
Orlando night club shooting killed 49. June 12, 2016.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_...chool_shooting
"armed with his mother's Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle and ten magazines with 30 rounds each" The Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle looks Exactly like an M-16 rifle.
Sandy Hook elementary school killed 26 people. Dec 14, 2012.

Of the top 7 mass shootings in US history, first link above, 5 of them used semi-auto assault weapons. 2 used semi-auto pistols.

Now I am aware that the vast, vast majority of murders and gun crimes in the USA are carried out with pistols. Not AR-15 type rifles. But the mass murderers know that AR-15 style rifles are great at killing lots of people very quickly. The AR-15 more or less was the prototype for the M-16 USA military rifle. Mass murderers are not dumb stupid idiots who can't even figure out how to tie their shoes. They have figured out the best mass killing weapon. And with lots of magazines, and maybe the bump stocks, they are as well equipped or better equipped than almost all police units. And definitely better equipped than any single police or security person they will encounter. If your goal is to kill lots and lots of people, a good way to accomplish that goal is to get an AR-15 rifle and lots of magazines of ammo.

Right you are, thanks.
You agree that the examples are semi, not 'Sturmgewehr'.


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

On 4/23/2021 5:08 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 15:58:08 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

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.


Yes, I guess I wasn't accurate in my description. When I said
"weapons" I should have elaborated and said something like personal or
maybe rifle like, or something.








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.

The usual distinction is 'small arms' as opposed to 'heavy'
or 'crew served' weapons.

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