New Tactical Cycling Maneuver

On 9/27/2020 9:45 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/26/2020 9:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 19:19:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
... as I mentioned, we had the opposite here a few days
ago -
someone barging in, shooting four adults and killing a
four-year-old
kid. This afternoon we rode by several memorials to the kid.

I don't want a society where every family has to have a
rapid fire gun
ready in the living room, because any punk on the street
can easily get
a rapid fire weapon and barge in. It's beyond me how
someone can pretend
that's wonderful.

But Frank. you live in a society with probably the highest
crime rate
in the civilized world, or at least you have the largest
number of
criminals in prison.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...ther_countries

In fact you have something like 2-1/3 times that of the
next country
on the list.

Yes, indeed. We also lead in medical expenses per capita
(but not in good medical outcomes), in cost of
pharmaceuticals, etc. etc. We're number one!

And, by the way, a shotgun is a far more effective weapon for
household defense then a rifle or pistol :-0

I agree. But AR-style guns are what's cool!

Fashion. It's weird and powerful.



All rifles together account for less than 300 per year,
versus roughly 1500 for edged weapons. Most years automatic
weapons account for zero incidents with zero deaths:

https://americanmilitarynews.com/201...ifles-in-2018/

I get it that you find the AR platform particularly ugly and
threatening. An AR is a lighter platform with a generally
smaller round[1] but the same rate of fire as an M1 Garand
or a revolver. Please get over the aesthetic. An SAW doesn't
look scary like that at all yet is an actually Very
Dangerous Thing:

https://fnamerica.com/wp-content/upl...1-1200x550.png


[1] guys do chamber AR style rifles with everything from .17
Hornet to 6.5 Creedmoor but the greater bulk are still .223,
as originally designed.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 9/27/2020 10:03 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/26/2020 10:27 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 9/25/2020 8:25 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
AMuzi writes:

On 9/24/2020 9:50 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 21:13:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/24/2020 8:25 PM, AMuzi wrote:

To the larger issue:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/nkvd.jpg

... as if that's a daily occurrence in all other
prosperous westernized
countries that have reasonable gun control?

Given that the photo shows an official of some sort
executing two
individual I don't see that it involves gun control at
all. Unless, of
course, you don't think that officials should be armed.


Meanwhile, just a few days ago and about three miles
away, some dude
barged into a house in a very quiet neighborhood at 2
AM and blasted
away, shooting four adults and one four-year-old boy.
The boy died in
his mother's arms.

Oddly, no "good guy with a gun" prevented the murder.

I suggest that the question is "Why". I did read that
the police,
"stressed that it was not a random act of violence but
rather a
targeted attack."

And I later read that "A suspect connected to a
shooting that killed a
4-year-old Ohio boy and wounded four adults, including
the boy's
mother, was arrested Monday night, authorities told
Fox News.
and
Kimonie Bryant, 24, surrendered to the U.S. Marshals
Service around 8
p.m., Struthers police Chief Tim Roddy said.


I do find it odd that one seldom hears calls for edged
weapons control
or ban:

https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/2020092...-hebdo-offices



Follow the UK news and you'll see lots of calls for
knife control.

Here's a story on the CoE calling for a ban on pointy
assault knives:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...rn-world-says/


I gather that carrying a folding knife with a locking
blade is
considered a serious offense in Blighty, sort of like a
"gravity knife"
in NYC:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/31/n...knife-law.html


Seems that particular misbegotten law has been repealed,
sometimes there
is progress.

Rest assured that if knives are banned the powers that
be will move on
to rocks and sharp sticks.

Let's compare knives vs. fast acting firearms.

There's this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_s..._United_States


vs. this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego..._United_States


The totals seem to be a bit different.

I'm not sure how that's a rebuttal to my statement. The
UK has made
non-police civilian firearms ownership close to
impossible, but the
movers and shakers are not satisfied. They have moved on
to trying to
ban pointy knives.

You might also ponder
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

There are hundreds of slippery slopes, and there are
countless attempts to lobby for laws that are senseless.
Most of those efforts fail, with good reason, so I don't
worry about most of them.

Somewhere in my technical education I was trained to compare
benefits with detriments; and when feasible, to attack the
worst problems first. I also tend to wonder "What do other
countries do?" and consider successful strategies they've
discovered.



On this we agree, which is why we both promote bicycle usage
in our own way:

2017 total US deaths:
647,457 heart disease
146,383 stroke
83,564 diabetes
35,316 hypertension

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

On 9/27/2020 11:41 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 6:02:57 PM UTC-7, wrote:

Unbeknownst to you, there is NO RIGHT to drive a motor vehicle in the USA. It is a privilege awarded by the state in which you reside.
Then by all means tell us what state in which you do not have that right to drive and that any state government that refused that right to lawful members of the community would survive even one election?


Russell is correct. England has a long history of
protecting rights of movement/travel but US law does not.

It's not only their snotty deprecating attitude ('it's a
privilege we may convey to you or not. You have no rights')
but that's the law as it stands.

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

On Sunday, September 27, 2020 at 11:27:39 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/27/2020 11:41 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 6:02:57 PM UTC-7, wrote:

Unbeknownst to you, there is NO RIGHT to drive a motor vehicle in the USA. It is a privilege awarded by the state in which you reside.
Then by all means tell us what state in which you do not have that right to drive and that any state government that refused that right to lawful members of the community would survive even one election?


Russell is correct. England has a long history of
protecting rights of movement/travel but US law does not.

It's not only their snotty deprecating attitude ('it's a
privilege we may convey to you or not. You have no rights')
but that's the law as it stands.

Saying it is a privilege and ruling so without a damn good reason are two different things. They haven't even pulled the licenses of people that drove into crowds, rather charging them with assault with a deadly weapon.

On 9/27/2020 1:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/26/2020 6:19 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/26/2020 2:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/26/2020 10:20 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote [but I just
corrected one minor typo]:
On 9/25/2020 9:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:


I've never been to a two-way range, and I hope never to
experience that, but many things can transpire in a very
long full sixty second minute. Your
off-the-top-of-the-head 'standard' is idiotic.

I can tell you don't like my standard. But your post
contains no real rebuttal, except for what Jim Jeffries
notes from about 1:45 to 2:00 in this clip:
https://youtu.be/0rR9IaXH1M0?t=102

I've never claimed that lots of guns can't shoot more than
five rounds in a minute. I know they can. I've shot several
myself.

Instead I'm saying (outside of military combat, of course)
that capability isn't needed. It's detriments to society far
outweigh it's benefits.

We rode by a shooting range just a few days ago. Among the
normal reports of normal target practice we could hear one
guy's occasional "pop pop pop pop pop." What do you suppose
he was pretending?


Pretending my ass. Probably home defense training which is
popular and like anything else deserving of practice in
order to be effective.

Pretending. They may be pretending they'll prevent a home
invasion by shooting an intruder, but their shooting
practice is based on pretending.
Â* This
from Tuesday:

https://abc7chicago.com/waukegan-new...mpted/6506524/



Yes, and as I mentioned, we had the opposite here a few days
ago - someone barging in, shooting four adults and killing a
four-year-old kid. This afternoon we rode by several
memorials to the kid.

I don't want a society where every family has to have a
rapid fire gun ready in the living room, because any punk on
the street can easily get a rapid fire weapon and barge in.
It's beyond me how someone can pretend that's wonderful.


'Rapid fire' is vanishingly rare and a red herring to your argument,
unless one defines 'rapid' as 'normal rate'. There were just a handful
of crimes committed using automatic weapons in the entire country since
1934.

My contention is that nobody but military needs a gun that will shoot
more than five to ten rounds in a minute.

Yes, I know that's considered a "normal rate." And I know nobody else is
saying what I'm saying.

But I'm saying faster shooting is not needed by civilians, and that on
the balance that capability is detrimental to society.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 9/27/2020 2:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/27/2020 9:45 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/26/2020 9:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 19:19:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
... as I mentioned, we had the opposite here a few days
ago -
someone barging in, shooting four adults and killing a
four-year-old
kid. This afternoon we rode by several memorials to the kid.

I don't want a society where every family has to have a
rapid fire gun
ready in the living room, because any punk on the street
can easily get
a rapid fire weapon and barge in. It's beyond me how
someone can pretend
that's wonderful.

But Frank. you live in a society with probably the highest
crime rate
in the civilized world, or at least you have the largest
number of
criminals in prison.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...ther_countries


In fact you have something like 2-1/3 times that of the
next country
on the list.

Yes, indeed. We also lead in medical expenses per capita
(but not in good medical outcomes), in cost of
pharmaceuticals, etc. etc. We're number one!

And, by the way, a shotgun is a far more effective weapon for
household defense then a rifle or pistol :-0

I agree. But AR-style guns are what's cool!

Fashion. It's weird and powerful.



All rifles together account for less than 300 per year, versus roughly
1500 for edged weapons. Most years automatic weapons account for zero
incidents with zero deaths:

https://americanmilitarynews.com/201...ifles-in-2018/

Here's a more complete breakdown:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...y-weapon-used/

If "Firearms type not stated" exceed known rifle murders by a factor of
ten, I think it's premature to give rifles a free pass.

But as you know, I don't condemn all rifles. I'm very much in favor of
hunting. And I'll note yet again that hunters, target shooters, etc.
have no real need of a gun that fires more than five to ten rounds in a
minute.
I get it that you find the AR platform particularly ugly and
threatening.Â* An AR is a lighter platform with a generally smaller
round[1] but the same rate of fire as an M1 Garand or a revolver. Please
get over the aesthetic.

It's not just aesthetics. It's partly the fact that AR guns can be and
have been modified rather easily to have extreme rates of fire and
extremely large capacity magazines - again, features that have no
practical use except for killing. And that those are the first choice of
American mass murderers.

My objections are also the motivations for the design. What are the
benefits of the AR geometry over the geometry of the M1 Garand? It's not
accuracy, as needed for target shooting or hunting. It's not as if the
lighter weight cures any massive fatigue problem of more conventional
long gun.

The geometry is motivated by combat realities. The smaller package is
easier to carry through a jungle or a bombed out city, easier to whip
around and shoot when surprised by an assailant. And military versions
benefit by burst firing, which makes up for reduced accuracy.

All that plays to the fantasies of wannabe tough guys, the Walter Mitty
guys who buy them primarily because they think it's cool to have
something that looks deadly. There's probably a lot of overlap with Call
of Duty players living in their mom's spare rooms. I don't think our
society benefits from that at all.

As this guy says https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgHhnPhv2bU "I never
saw the need for all that ammunition. The M1 Garand separates the rifle
MEN from the rifle BOYS. If you can't get the job done in eight shots,
maybe you need to head back to the practice range."

An SAW doesn't look scary like that at all yet
is an actually Very Dangerous Thing:

https://fnamerica.com/wp-content/upl...1-1200x550.png

I think that looks scary to most people.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 9/27/2020 4:50 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/27/2020 2:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/27/2020 9:45 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/26/2020 9:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 19:19:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
... as I mentioned, we had the opposite here a few days
ago -
someone barging in, shooting four adults and killing a
four-year-old
kid. This afternoon we rode by several memorials to the
kid.

I don't want a society where every family has to have a
rapid fire gun
ready in the living room, because any punk on the street
can easily get
a rapid fire weapon and barge in. It's beyond me how
someone can pretend
that's wonderful.

But Frank. you live in a society with probably the highest
crime rate
in the civilized world, or at least you have the largest
number of
criminals in prison.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...ther_countries


In fact you have something like 2-1/3 times that of the
next country
on the list.

Yes, indeed. We also lead in medical expenses per capita
(but not in good medical outcomes), in cost of
pharmaceuticals, etc. etc. We're number one!

And, by the way, a shotgun is a far more effective
weapon for
household defense then a rifle or pistol :-0

I agree. But AR-style guns are what's cool!

Fashion. It's weird and powerful.



All rifles together account for less than 300 per year,
versus roughly 1500 for edged weapons. Most years
automatic weapons account for zero incidents with zero
deaths:

https://americanmilitarynews.com/201...ifles-in-2018/


Here's a more complete breakdown:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...y-weapon-used/


If "Firearms type not stated" exceed known rifle murders by
a factor of ten, I think it's premature to give rifles a
free pass.

But as you know, I don't condemn all rifles. I'm very much
in favor of hunting. And I'll note yet again that hunters,
target shooters, etc. have no real need of a gun that fires
more than five to ten rounds in a minute.
I get it that you find the AR platform particularly ugly
and threatening. An AR is a lighter platform with a
generally smaller round[1] but the same rate of fire as an
M1 Garand or a revolver. Please get over the aesthetic.

It's not just aesthetics. It's partly the fact that AR guns
can be and have been modified rather easily to have extreme
rates of fire and extremely large capacity magazines -
again, features that have no practical use except for
killing. And that those are the first choice of American
mass murderers.

My objections are also the motivations for the design. What
are the benefits of the AR geometry over the geometry of the
M1 Garand? It's not accuracy, as needed for target shooting
or hunting. It's not as if the lighter weight cures any
massive fatigue problem of more conventional long gun.

The geometry is motivated by combat realities. The smaller
package is easier to carry through a jungle or a bombed out
city, easier to whip around and shoot when surprised by an
assailant. And military versions benefit by burst firing,
which makes up for reduced accuracy.

All that plays to the fantasies of wannabe tough guys, the
Walter Mitty guys who buy them primarily because they think
it's cool to have something that looks deadly. There's
probably a lot of overlap with Call of Duty players living
in their mom's spare rooms. I don't think our society
benefits from that at all.

As this guy says
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgHhnPhv2bU "I never saw
the need for all that ammunition. The M1 Garand separates
the rifle MEN from the rifle BOYS. If you can't get the job
done in eight shots, maybe you need to head back to the
practice range."

An SAW doesn't look scary like that at all yet is an
actually Very Dangerous Thing:

https://fnamerica.com/wp-content/upl...1-1200x550.png


I think that looks scary to most people.




We'll just agree to disagree about fire rate since that M1
fires at the same rate as every other semi; pistol or rifle.

I have engaged a lot of people with a lot of viewpoints on
firearms and various aspects of their place in society for
many years. I've learned a lot, seen other points of view
and changed a few opinions here and there. I have to say
your position on fire rate is the first I've ever heard of such.

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

On Sunday, September 27, 2020 at 2:51:00 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/27/2020 2:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/27/2020 9:45 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/26/2020 9:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 19:19:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
... as I mentioned, we had the opposite here a few days
ago -
someone barging in, shooting four adults and killing a
four-year-old
kid. This afternoon we rode by several memorials to the kid.

I don't want a society where every family has to have a
rapid fire gun
ready in the living room, because any punk on the street
can easily get
a rapid fire weapon and barge in. It's beyond me how
someone can pretend
that's wonderful.

But Frank. you live in a society with probably the highest
crime rate
in the civilized world, or at least you have the largest
number of
criminals in prison.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...ther_countries


In fact you have something like 2-1/3 times that of the
next country
on the list.

Yes, indeed. We also lead in medical expenses per capita
(but not in good medical outcomes), in cost of
pharmaceuticals, etc. etc. We're number one!

And, by the way, a shotgun is a far more effective weapon for
household defense then a rifle or pistol :-0

I agree. But AR-style guns are what's cool!

Fashion. It's weird and powerful.



All rifles together account for less than 300 per year, versus roughly
1500 for edged weapons. Most years automatic weapons account for zero
incidents with zero deaths:

https://americanmilitarynews.com/201...ifles-in-2018/

Here's a more complete breakdown:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...y-weapon-used/

If "Firearms type not stated" exceed known rifle murders by a factor of
ten, I think it's premature to give rifles a free pass.

But as you know, I don't condemn all rifles. I'm very much in favor of
hunting. And I'll note yet again that hunters, target shooters, etc.
have no real need of a gun that fires more than five to ten rounds in a
minute.
I get it that you find the AR platform particularly ugly and
threatening.Â* An AR is a lighter platform with a generally smaller
round[1] but the same rate of fire as an M1 Garand or a revolver. Please
get over the aesthetic.

It's not just aesthetics. It's partly the fact that AR guns can be and
have been modified rather easily to have extreme rates of fire and
extremely large capacity magazines - again, features that have no
practical use except for killing. And that those are the first choice of
American mass murderers.

My objections are also the motivations for the design. What are the
benefits of the AR geometry over the geometry of the M1 Garand? It's not
accuracy, as needed for target shooting or hunting. It's not as if the
lighter weight cures any massive fatigue problem of more conventional
long gun.

The geometry is motivated by combat realities. The smaller package is
easier to carry through a jungle or a bombed out city, easier to whip
around and shoot when surprised by an assailant. And military versions
benefit by burst firing, which makes up for reduced accuracy.

All that plays to the fantasies of wannabe tough guys, the Walter Mitty
guys who buy them primarily because they think it's cool to have
something that looks deadly. There's probably a lot of overlap with Call
of Duty players living in their mom's spare rooms. I don't think our
society benefits from that at all.

As this guy says https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgHhnPhv2bU "I never
saw the need for all that ammunition. The M1 Garand separates the rifle
MEN from the rifle BOYS. If you can't get the job done in eight shots,
maybe you need to head back to the practice range."

An SAW doesn't look scary like that at all yet
is an actually Very Dangerous Thing:

https://fnamerica.com/wp-content/upl...1-1200x550.png

I think that looks scary to most people.


Particularly after reading about the death of Pat Tillman. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/...ryId=112816210 That's a good read.

Guns like all mechanical devices have collectors and admirers -- non-insane people who like the transformer aspect of AR15 variants and go plinking or squirrel hunting. They're kind of cool. And then you have the insane wannabes, mass-shooters, etc. It seems that limiting the size of magazines would give the former what they want while requiring the latter to at least stop and reload, although they'll always find larger mags somewhere. Bump stocks don't have much merit and were appropriately banned. I don't get having an AR15 for home defense. Get a shotgun or a handgun if you think you need one -- or move. In the anarchist jurisdiction of Portland, I've never felt the need for a gun, and I own guns. I do have a little league baseball bat in the closet -- in case of attack by little leaguers.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 10:27:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/26/2020 8:28 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 11:22:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/25/2020 11:15 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 20:07:48 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 9/25/2020 6:54 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/25/2020 12:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/25/2020 9:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/24/2020 10:50 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 21:13:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/24/2020 8:25 PM, AMuzi wrote:
To the larger issue:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/nkvd.jpg

... as if that's a daily occurrence in all other
prosperous westernized
countries that have reasonable gun control?

Given that the photo shows an official of some sort
executing two
individual I don't see that it involves gun control at
all. Unless, of
course, you don't think that officials should be armed.

I think Andrew's implication is that if (say) America
introduces universal background checks and restricts the
purchase of rapid fire assault-style weapons, that police
will begin executing civilians on the streets.

IOW, the implausible connection to gun control was not mine.


You mistake my position.

Perhaps, then, you should explain more clearly why you
linked a photo of a Nazi officer murdering captives.

The Second was clearly and tersely written with a
definitive and final period after 'shall not be infringed'
by men whose memory of Lexington was fresh.

I think it's obvious that the 2nd amendment has never been
interpreted as complete and total license to own any and all
firearms - at least, not by anyone with at least two
functioning brain cells. The current radical interpretation
is rather new and is at odds with many decades of
interpretation and practice. It's even at odds with the
NRA's historic positions. It's a product of a campaign to
line the pockets of LaPierre and others like him.

Automatic weapons have been severely restricted since
1934. One might argue that the National Firearms Act is an
unconstitutional abridgement but the courts are not
interested in that argument.

Please. The courts saw through that argument long ago. They
are not interested for very sound reasons.

So here we are, some 80+ years later in a nation where
firearm ownership is widespread, voluminous and growing.
Yesterday, virtually all of them passed another day nicely
oiled and cased without incident.

My guess is the majority of guns in the U.S. pass multiple
years while stored away. In other words, they are not
necessary, except to comfort certain paranoid individuals.

In particular, it's essentially never necessary to have a
gun capable of firing more than about five rounds in one
minute. Given that rapid fire guns have the proven detriment
of facilitating horrible illegal behavior, the balance of
benefits vs. detriments is heavily against them.

(BTW, only a tiny fraction of red light running causes
fatalities. That's not justification for allowing red light
running.)


Image is not a National Socialist but rather NKVD
(International Socialist) for those who see any difference
whatsoever among the sorry lot of socialists all together.

Five rounds per minute? WTF?
My .38 Police Special does all five in about 3 to 4 seconds
when actually concentrating on a target. Guys who are good
at that sort of thing use 8-shot revolvers and the record is
one second.

Back when I was a competition pistol shooter I used to practice on a
range where the State Police also practiced and I used to,watch then
shooting the "Practical Police Course" that included 10 rounds at 10
feet, or some such distance. 5 rounds, reload and 5 more in 10
seconds... with a six shot revolver and loose ammunition :-)

I'm curious how much time the typical British police have to put into
that kind of drill.

Probably very similar.
"in the year 2011–12, there were 6,756 Authorised Firearms Officers,

... That's out of 130,000 total police? Not very similar to the U.S.

12,550 police operations in which firearms were authorised throughout
England and Wales"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police...United_Kingdom
and, it might be noted that in N.Ireland - still a part of the British
Empire - all police are armed.

It doesn't sound very similar at all to the U.S. First, that paragraph
talks about only Northern Ireland, not Great Britain or the entire UK.
IOW, it's not the "typical British police" I asked about.

Also, that article said that during World War Two, police were given
revolvers "in case of invasion" but did not carry them on patrol.
"Training for the Webley & Scott revolvers usually consisted of firing
six shots and to pass, it was required that three shots had to be on
target although loading of the actual weapon was not taught."

That was a special circumstance during wartime, and even then there was
no mention of pop-up targets and other extensive shooting drills that
American cops frequently use.

https://atstargets.com/home/security...tems-security/

I have no idea what training civilian cops go through but I have seen
U.S. Air Force military police at their periodic "qualification"
shoots and the degree of accuracy is pitiful, at least from a
qualified pistol shooter's view point. In contrast I have seen Maine
state police, that used to practice on our range at times, do some
really good shooting. One chap would set up a one gallon can and back
off to the 100 yard marker and, shooting prone with both hands, hit
the can 4 out of 5 shots with a S&W 4" barrel.

I just looked up qualifying requirements for police and found that for
California police the standard is:

These are the minimum requirements for a course of fire. No specific
course is specified, so individual departments are left to develop
their own courses. Even as a low bar, this seems very low.

From 3 yrds within 30 seconds: 6 shots, reload, 6 shots (shooting from
the hip)

From 7 yrds within 30 seconds: 6 shots, reload, 6 shots

From 15 yrds within 45 seconds: 6 shots, reload, 6 shots.

Scoring is left to the discretion of individual ranges.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 10:35:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/26/2020 8:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 12:49:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/25/2020 8:25 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
AMuzi writes:

On 9/24/2020 9:50 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 21:13:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/24/2020 8:25 PM, AMuzi wrote:

To the larger issue:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/nkvd.jpg

... as if that's a daily occurrence in all other prosperous westernized
countries that have reasonable gun control?

Given that the photo shows an official of some sort executing two
individual I don't see that it involves gun control at all. Unless, of
course, you don't think that officials should be armed.


Meanwhile, just a few days ago and about three miles away, some dude
barged into a house in a very quiet neighborhood at 2 AM and blasted
away, shooting four adults and one four-year-old boy. The boy died in
his mother's arms.

Oddly, no "good guy with a gun" prevented the murder.

I suggest that the question is "Why". I did read that the police,
"stressed that it was not a random act of violence but rather a
targeted attack."

And I later read that "A suspect connected to a shooting that killed a
4-year-old Ohio boy and wounded four adults, including the boy's
mother, was arrested Monday night, authorities told Fox News.
and
Kimonie Bryant, 24, surrendered to the U.S. Marshals Service around 8
p.m., Struthers police Chief Tim Roddy said.


I do find it odd that one seldom hears calls for edged weapons control
or ban:

https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/2020092...-hebdo-offices


Follow the UK news and you'll see lots of calls for knife control.

Here's a story on the CoE calling for a ban on pointy assault knives:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...rn-world-says/

I gather that carrying a folding knife with a locking blade is
considered a serious offense in Blighty, sort of like a "gravity knife"
in NYC:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/31/n...knife-law.html

Seems that particular misbegotten law has been repealed, sometimes there
is progress.

Rest assured that if knives are banned the powers that be will move on
to rocks and sharp sticks.

Let's compare knives vs. fast acting firearms.

There's this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_s..._United_States

vs. this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego..._United_States

The totals seem to be a bit different.

Try
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack
31 deaths, 140 injured

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagamihara_stabbings
19 deaths and 26 injured

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_London_Bridge_attack
8 deaths and 48 injured

Right. I compared U.S. mass shootings vs. U.S. mass stabbings. Same
population base.

You had to canvass the world in order to come up with your three
examples of mass stabbings. None of yours were in the U.S.

Your grand total number of cited stabbing victims can be exceeded by
shooting deaths in a single American city in a single month.

Well, yes... but I thought we were talking about "Mass" killings and
your implications that firearms are the cause...
I'm simply pointing out that mass killings don't depend on firearms
and can be accomplished by various methods.

In killing the Hutus, 6,000 - 8,000, during the First Congo War, I
read that children were often killed by bashing their heads against
trees and in the Indonesian killings of communists, where between
500,000 and 1,000,000 were killed - nobody knows for sure, knives and
clubs were the primary weapons. And in this case I talked to people
that participated in the killings.
--
Cheers,

John B.