New Tactical Cycling Maneuver

On Friday, September 25, 2020 at 5:30:54 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/25/2020 3:28 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, September 24, 2020 at 9:54:58 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/24/2020 11:00 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, September 24, 2020 at 8:37:23 AM UTC-7, Tosspot wrote:
On 24/09/2020 15.59, AMuzi wrote:
https://nypost.com/2020/09/24/a-seat...s-head-during/

Why are the cops riding bikes at night with no lights? Is that not
illegal?
Why are you unaware that police are not subject to traffic regulations? Are you supposing that the police are going to pursue someone while staying within the speed limit?

Technically they can run stop signs/stop lights and blow
speed limits, go wrong-way and so on only when the red
lights are rolling.

(or blue lights or whatever in your area)

Maybe in your state Andrew but not in most. It is pretty difficult to sneak up on criminals when your lights and siren are on.

California Statues section 21055:

https://law.justia.com/codes/califor...050-21070.html

When sneaking up on people a police car has to obey the
other traffic statutes. Mr Beattie, in his capacity as an
actual California ambulance operator, told you this already.

Well tell you what, someone better explain that to the police. In California all a cop needs to break the traffic laws is a red light. It does not need to be flashing and he does not need to have his siren on. Turning on a red light is all it takes.

On Friday, September 25, 2020 at 5:50:55 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/25/2020 3:37 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, September 24, 2020 at 5:25:14 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/24/2020 5:53 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 12:39:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/24/2020 12:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/24/2020 10:37 AM, Tosspot wrote:
On 24/09/2020 15.59, AMuzi wrote:
https://nypost.com/2020/09/24/a-seat...s-head-during/



Why are the cops riding bikes at night with no lights? Is
that not illegal?



Probably. Ring 911 to ask for more police?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lling-911.html

Similar to that incident: One friend of mine lives on a lot of wooded
rural acreage. He has "No Hunting" signs posted.

He got wind of a hunter on his property and walked out to confront the
guy. As he told me, the hunter's attitude was threatening. He pointed
his gun at my friend and asked "What are you going to do about it?"

My friend faced him down, saying something like "You're not going to
shoot me." But I think that takes extraordinary courage. I'd certainly
have called the cops.

And about the "Defund" movement: ISTM that many, if not most, of those
saying that are not saying police forces should be abolished, or that
criminals should be given free rein (although I suppose there are
radical libertarians). They are instead proposing that other agencies
handle encounters that don't require an armed man in uniform.

As to radical libertarians: I suppose people who frequently say "laws
don't work, legalize everything" must be very much in favor of
abolishing police forces. I'm not one of those people.

Are there "other agencies". I believe that the Military is
specifically forbidden to act as police in U.S. territories.

Perhaps a new agency could be formed, "The Agency of Armed Force",
(TAOAF). But would that be a State or Federal force?

Not all that simple. You're right about the formal armed
forces but the prior administration set up armed security
branches in every Department:

This from 2012:
https://www.theblaze.com/contributio...h-armed-agents

and 2016:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/prett...s-hank-berrien

those are from a quick web search. It's a perplexing trend
to those who wonder why the Education Department needs an
assault team.

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

Every one of these armed agents is required to qualify at a range once a year. And that qualification means hitting a 50 foot target with a hand held gun in rapid fire situations. So they are pretty damned good with a handgun. I was never much one with a handgun other than an automatic, but with a rifle you should have seen me there with a Federal Agent. It was one of those ranges where at 100 feet to 100 yards, targets would pop out and you had to make sure you only hit qualified targets Someone with a weapon that wasn't a uniformed cop) and not the picture of the little old lady or the man with a walker. I hit bullseye on 100% of those and the Federal Agent gave up after he couldn't even hit the long targets before a new one appeared. That was 3 or 4 years ago.

With you broad wisdom and experience in the area, please
enlighten me. Why does the Education Department need
assault squads? Extra points for the Weather Service.

What gives the idea that because they have armed officers protecting entry into Federal buildings they constitute an assault squad?

On Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 8:20:48 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/25/2020 9:07 PM, 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.

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 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?

You may hold any opinion you like. But the 2nd Amendment isn't moving.

On Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 7:34:49 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:

Yes, some are tragic but of all the suicides I've known most
made the best decision for themselves and more importantly
those around them. If not firearm then something else, the
method being secondary in most cases.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Actually, the use of a firearm for suicide is the one rational reason for a private person to own a firearm. It's quick, convenient and permanent. All the other rationalisations Americans put forward for owning sidearms and rapid-fire long-barrel weapons are sophistries, and a failure in depth of government to get guns off the streets.

Andre Jute
The outside view

On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 07:36:30 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 9/25/2020 10:06 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 20:26:25 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 9/25/2020 7:30 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, 25 September 2020 16:28:46 UTC-4, wrote:
On Friday, September 25, 2020 at 11:00:04 AM UTC-5, 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. 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.

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. 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.

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun...s-by-state/13/

which comes to just under 5 million firearms in Ohio.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

In the USA firearms kill about 100 people per day. Does that meet your "virtually all of them passed another day nicely oiled and cased without incident." criteria? I guess the number of people dying by firearms is only one tenth the number dying by Covid-19 each day. So its irrelevant. Trump and the Republicans think Covid-19 is a hoax and is going to go away very soon, so one tenth as many dying by firearms each day is surely immaterial.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/s...ty/firearm.htm
Sum of DEATHS
YEAR Total
2014 33,508
2015 36,132
2016 38,551
2017 39,673
2018 39,615
Total 187,479

Funny thing is about 3000 fewer people died in the USA from vehicle accidents each year. I'd have guessed vehicle deaths were much higher than firearm deaths. But NO. Americans love to shoot people to death! Even more than they like to run them over. Of course keep in mind all these deaths by guns and cars are one tenth as many as the Covid-19 is killing each day.

Any two years on that list equals more firearm deaths than the Vietnam Conflict had in total.


sorta kinda but not really.

Hint: Subtract the suicide and negligent discharges from
firearms deaths.

Also the horrific 58,000 number of US deaths supporting ARVN
includes accident disease and misadventure above the 47,400
combat deaths. Bad enough, but accuracy ought to matter.

It might also be noted that this was for a twenty year period, from
1955 til 1975.


One more thing about death comparisons- since auto deaths
include both vehicles you might pause to note 1,100,000 NVA
and VC, and that after the earlier French Indochina bloodbath.

ref: http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html

I suspect that the NVA/VC numbers should be taken with "a grain of
salt" as I remember some reporter keeping count of "enemy Killed"
figures by Saigon and announcing that the U.S. had killed more then
the total population of Vietnam :-)


Check the sources in that link it's pretty well documented.

On the other hand, I read on another site that there were 849,018
PAVN.VC military personnel dead, including combat death and non-combat
death, from the period between 1955 and 1975. Across all three wars
including the First Indochina War and the Third Indochina War there
was a total of 1,146,250 PAVN/VC military deaths or missing, included
939,460 deaths (their bodies were found) and 207,000 missing (their
bodies were not found).
The reference seems to be an official Vietnam government report or
statement.

But I liked the statement from your reference (referring to the
Vietnam reports) that "These figures were deliberately falsified
during the war by the North Vietnamese Communists to avoid
demoralizing the population. In that the U.S. headquarters in Saigon
were doing exactly the same thing to demonstrate how well they were
doing. :-)

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 9/26/2020 3:30 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
AMuzi wrote:
On 9/26/2020 11:58 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/25/2020 10:52 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 17:30:57 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Friday, 25 September 2020 16:28:46 UTC-4,
wrote:
On Friday, September 25, 2020 at 11:00:04 AM UTC-5,
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. 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.

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. 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.

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun...s-by-state/13/


which comes to just under 5 million firearms in Ohio.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

In the USA firearms kill about 100 people per day. Does
that meet your "virtually all of them passed another day
nicely oiled and cased without incident." criteria? I
guess the number of people dying by firearms is only one
tenth the number dying by Covid-19 each day. So its
irrelevant. Trump and the Republicans think Covid-19 is
a hoax and is going to go away very soon, so one tenth
as many dying by firearms each day is surely immaterial.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/s...ty/firearm.htm

Sum of DEATHS
YEAR Total
2014 33,508
2015 36,132
2016 38,551
2017 39,673
2018 39,615
Total 187,479

Funny thing is about 3000 fewer people died in the USA
from vehicle accidents each year. I'd have guessed
vehicle deaths were much higher than firearm deaths.
But NO. Americans love to shoot people to death! Even
more than they like to run them over. Of course keep in
mind all these deaths by guns and cars are one tenth as
many as the Covid-19 is killing each day.

Any two years on that list equals more firearm deaths
than the Vietnam Conflict had in total.

Cheers

I don't know whether you consider it significant or not
but in most
years suicides account for more then half of the firearm
deaths.
In 2017, for example, some 23,854 committed suicide with a
firearm.

If you had a family member who committed suicide by firearm,
you might not write those deaths off quite so cavalierly.



Yes, some are tragic but of all the suicides I've known most
made the best decision for themselves and more importantly
those around them. If not firearm then something else, the
method being secondary in most cases.


That seems uncharacteristically cold of you, Andrew. I’m no expert on
suicide, but I see it as a result of a temporary loss of all optimism. The
one person that I know attempted suicide is still alive and quite happy
now. Perhaps if they had used a gun, the story wouldn’t have had quite so
happy of an ending.

I have known several people who suicided or attempted it. Only one
succeeded without using a gun. Two others who attempted and failed have
healed through therapy and are living decent to extremly good lives.

Had they used guns, they'd be dead and those who love them would be
endlessly mourning.

People should not make light of suicide. They certainly should not do it
to advance pro-gun objectives.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 9/26/2020 2:45 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/26/2020 12:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/25/2020 10:30 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 20:17:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/25/2020 7:11 PM, John B. wrote:

Timothy McVeighÂ* carried out the 1995 Oklahoma City
bombing that
killed 168 people and injured more than 680 others and
is considered
the deadliest act of terrorism in the United States
prior to the
September 11 attacks andÂ* remains the deadliest act of
domestic
terrorism in the history of the U.S., using fertilizer
and diesel
fuel.

In contrast the 2017 Las Vegas shooting killed 60 and
wounded 411.

Interesting point about the Oklahoma City bombing. Yes,
168 dead is a
lot for one criminal act.

But in five days, you'd exceed that with U.S. gun
homicides. Is that
really supposed to make those OK?

So? Using 2013 (as I have details for that year) there
were 33,169
firearm deaths, including some 21,175 suicides,During the
same period
there were 32,893 highway deaths.

So apparently you are getting excepted about some 278
deaths, or at
least I've never heard you lament highway deaths so I
assume that you
accept them, And, during 2013 there were 749 bicycle deaths.

So essentially you are getting all excepted about firearm
deaths which
exceeded highway deaths, a subject that you seem to
ignore, by a 278
and totally ignore the 746, nearly 3 times, bicycle deaths
during the
same period.

You've raised that point before - but then, you didn't
misuse the word "excepted." (I'm not sure what meaning your
intending for that.)

I suppose you could start a thread to philosophically
examine each and every cause of death. We could discuss
methods of ranking, appropriate raactions, etc. If you like
that idea, have at it.

But as to your direct comparison of motoring deaths vs. gun
deaths: I don't blithely accept either, and neither does
society as a whole. However, there are important differences.

Motoring deaths, looked at in general, are a sad byproduct
of an otherwise beneficial system, since transport is
necessary for human interaction and commerce. It's extremely
uncommon for people to claim we can run a modern and
prosperous society without use of motor vehicles. So there
are fortunes spent annually to learn how to retain motor
transportation but reduce its fatality count and rate.

On the other hand, gun deaths are a result of the design
function of guns, not a sad byproduct. In essence, guns
exist to kill people or things. And except for extremely
isolated rural and wilderness locations they are not
necessary for human interaction and commerce. (Please recall
I am strongly in favor of hunting.) It's obviously possible
to run a prosperous society with far, far fewer man-killing
guns than the U.S. has. And furthermore, in the U.S. the gun
lobby has put fortunes into passing legislation
_prohibiting_ research on reducing gun fatality counts and
rates.

The two cases are not very similar at all.


Maybe, maybe not. We just had another across-the-center-line suicide
near here this week.

Worse, this being Wisconsin and all, the victim not only watched the
idiot die right in front of him, not only was seriously injured, not
only had his own vehicle totaled but was charged in the hospital for DUI.

Single exceptional anecdotes don't trump nationwide statistics.


--
- Frank Krygowski

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.
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.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 11:20:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/25/2020 9:07 PM, 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.

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 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?

Sort of like all the pseudo bike racers thundering along on their
$thousands "racing bikes" at 10 - 15 mph, isn't it.

Except they don't go "pop pop pop".
--
Cheers,

John B.

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,
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.
--
Cheers,

John B.