On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 12:31:16 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/14/2022 1:15 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 2:11:59 PM UTC-5, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Whatever the actual numbers are, isn't it clear that the mass shootings are a tiny percentage of the homicides?
> >> And that the focus on the AR15 really is applicable only to that tiny percentage?
> >>
> >> I would do a couple things to reduce all gun homicides instead.
> >
> > That sounds like you're advocating a more broad based approach to gun control, rather than focusing on assault weapons?
> > "Magazines available up to 30 rounds for visiting gay bath houses" - Tom Kunich
> >
> Few 'mass' events are jihadis or maniacs, fewer still with
> AR-15 or any long gun:
>
> https://abcnews.go.com/US/dead-injured-early-morning-shooting-bar/story?id=77147828
>
> Then again, firearms are only a subset of violence. Ever
> 'borrow' tools? Always return them promptly!
>
> https://923wnpc.com/morristown-man-killed-over-dispute-about-tools/
>
> Not that any murder is 'OK' but, in the world as we find it,
> there are much larger problems, such as hospital-acquired
> fatal sepsis for 70,000 Americans per yer and steadily
> growing, despite efforts (or feints?) to control it. All
> equally dead.

Not to mention the 35,000 auto deaths per year almost entirely due to speeding.

On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 3:10:47 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 11:53:20 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 2/14/2022 2:18 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 8:59:51 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I believe most people who target shoot ARs have subconscious fantasies
> > >> of blowing away The Other Guys. But only if it should become necessary,
> > >> of course!
> > >
> > > I would be willing to limit them to five rounds only if the first two went through your brain.
> > And that's precisely the type of fantasy I'm discussing. It's vulgar,
> > crude and cowardly. It should not be promoted, let alone glorified.
> Frank, YOUJUST FUCKING LIED ABOUT IT. You'd be OK if the magazines were limited to 5 rounds? That means to anyone with the use of English that you see ART15's as a threat. Tell us more of your damned lies. I'm sure that you can abuse English enough to try it.

tommy's temper tantrum #3247
"Magazines available up to 30 rounds for visiting gay bath houses" - Tom Kunich

On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 1:55:13 PM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 3:10:47 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 11:53:20 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > On 2/14/2022 2:18 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > > On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 8:59:51 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> I believe most people who target shoot ARs have subconscious fantasies
> > > >> of blowing away The Other Guys. But only if it should become necessary,
> > > >> of course!
> > > >
> > > > I would be willing to limit them to five rounds only if the first two went through your brain.
> > > And that's precisely the type of fantasy I'm discussing. It's vulgar,
> > > crude and cowardly. It should not be promoted, let alone glorified.
> > Frank, YOUJUST FUCKING LIED ABOUT IT. You'd be OK if the magazines were limited to 5 rounds? That means to anyone with the use of English that you see AR15's as a threat. Tell us more of your damned lies. I'm sure that you can abuse English enough to try it.
> tommy's temper tantrum #3247
> "Magazines available up to 30 rounds for visiting gay bath houses" - Tom Kunich
Flunky's support of lies #8,438.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 06:27:15 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 2:15:11 AM UTC-5, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 6:55:05 PM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 4:43:54 PM UTC-8, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 7:24:12 PM UTC-5, Tim R wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Some discussion earlier about the military mindset and tradition.
>> > >
>> > > I read a fascinating book about the evolution of the military long arm over time, and there was violent disagreement from the earliest days over the choice of calibre which continues to this day. The title escapes me.
>> > >
>> > > The original musket was in .69 caliber. By the Civil War this had shrunk to .58, over the bitter resistance of what they called gravel bellies. Soldiers could carry more ammo, so they British sshot more ammo, so somebody had to pay for, procure, and deliver more ammo.
>> > >
>> > > .45 caliber owned the late 1800s, with the .30 appearing near the end. The Phillippine conflict still had mostly trapdoor springfields in .45 but I the .30 Krag was used. Every reduction was fought ferociously by the oldtimers.
>> > >
>> > > There were extensive tests of lethality (sheep I think), range, and accuracy at Aberdeen Proving ground, and out to about 1000 yards the .276 did as well as the larger calibers.
>> > >
>> > > In Vietnam we went to .223, which I think is the sweet spot - smaller loses range and penetration, larger loses ability to carry enough ammo and recoil hurts accuracy for most soldiers. (I recently rewatched Zulu. Those rifles were Martini-Henrys in .577/.450, meaning they were a .577 cartridge case necked down to fire a .450 caliber 480 grain bullet. Recoil had to be extreme with that loading, and the average soldier probably weighed about 140.)
>> > Recoil isn't very important. Women skeet shooter use 12 gauge full loads without having any problems shooting entire matches with guns that recoil a great deal more than the M1A. I couldn't even feel the recoil of the M1 carbine which shoots a 30 caliber round.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErN5UNx5XqM
>> Above is a video of a girl shooting an M1 Garand. Video is only 58 seconds in length. She is sitting at a table and the rifle is on a rest. For some reason her chair has wheels. But everytime she fires a 30-06 shell, her shoulder flies backwards 6 inches and her head snaps back off of the buttstock. A 30-06 rifle cartridge is not a light recoil weapon.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Kig2kaHZEg
>> This video is of a man firing the M1 Garand in 30-06. He handles the recoil better. He is standing. But it still kicks and recoils. It is not a light recoil weapon. Video is 2:14 in length and the M1 starts at about 25 second mark.
>
> In tommy's defense, I would imagine he couldn't feel the recoil wen all the ever gave him to shoot are blanks

Or when he shoots his mouth off (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 07:48:38 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 9:26:52 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 2/12/2022 8:56 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 6:43:54 PM UTC-6, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 7:24:12 PM UTC-5, Tim R wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Some discussion earlier about the military mindset and tradition.
>> >>
>> >> I read a fascinating book about the evolution of the military long arm over time, and there was violent disagreement from the earliest days over the choice of calibre which continues to this day. The title escapes me.
>> >>
>> >> The original musket was in .69 caliber. By the Civil War this had shrunk to .58, over the bitter resistance of what they called gravel bellies. Soldiers could carry more ammo, so they British sshot more ammo, so somebody had to pay for, procure, and deliver more ammo.
>> >>
>> >> .45 caliber owned the late 1800s, with the .30 appearing near the end. The Phillippine conflict still had mostly trapdoor springfields in .45 but I the .30 Krag was used. Every reduction was fought ferociously by the oldtimers.
>> >>
>> >> There were extensive tests of lethality (sheep I think), range, and accuracy at Aberdeen Proving ground, and out to about 1000 yards the .276 did as well as the larger calibers.
>> >>
>> >> In Vietnam we went to .223, which I think is the sweet spot - smaller loses range and penetration, larger loses ability to carry enough ammo and recoil hurts accuracy for most soldiers. (I recently rewatched Zulu. Those rifles were Martini-Henrys in .577/.450, meaning they were a .577 cartridge case necked down to fire a .450 caliber 480 grain bullet. Recoil had to be extreme with that loading, and the average soldier probably weighed about 140.)
>> >
>> > Your description of caliber size decreasing over the centuries leaves out one pretty important fact. Gun powder changed from black powder to smokeless to whatever high tech propellant we are using today. Back with your original British Brown Bess .69 cartridge/.75 caliber, it was propelled with relatively weak black powder. By the time the 1898 Cuba war came along with Teddy leading the Rough Riders up the hill they were using smokeless powder in their .30-40 Krag rifles. And then I am guessing there were more advancements in gun powder leading up to Vietnam and the use of 5.56 NATO (.223). So with the smaller and skinnier bullets using more explosive propellant, the killing force, energy foot pounds of force delivered to the target, was the same or even more.
>> >
>>
>> +1
>
>Andrew, there has been almost no advancement in the composition
of smokeless powders for over 100 years. The base of it is
nitrocellulose and using anything with a faster burn would explode
shells in their chambers. The only reason that the .223 caliber was
used was that advancement of bullet design gave the striking power to
that caliber to that of larger bullets with the advantage of being the
able to carry additional ammunition without being excessively hindered
by the weight.

Well Tommy, wrong again.

Modern gun powders are of several different compositions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokeless_powde

propellants using nitrocellulose (detonation velocity 7,300 m/s
(23,950 ft/s), RE factor 1.10) (typically an ether-alcohol colloid of
nitrocellulose) as the sole explosive propellant ingredient are
described as single-base powder.

Propellants mixtures containing nitrocellulose and nitroglycerin
(detonation velocity 7,700 m/s (25,260 ft/s), RE factor 1.54) as
explosive propellant ingredients are known as double-base powder

Alternatively diethylene glycol dinitrate (detonation velocity 6,610
m/s (21,690 ft/s), RE factor 1.17) can be used as a nitroglycerin
replacement when reduced flame temperatures without sacrificing
chamber pressure are of importance.

During the 1930s, triple-base propellant containing nitrocellulose,
nitroglycerin or diethylene glycol dinitrate, and a substantial
quantity of nitroguanidine (detonation velocity 8,200 m/s (26,900
ft/s), RE factor 0.95) as explosive propellant ingredients was
developed. These "cold propellant" mixtures have reduced flash and
flame temperature without sacrificing chamber pressure

In the late 20th century new propellant formulations started to
appear. These are based on nitroguanidine and high explosives of the
RDX type (detonation velocity 8,750 m/s (28,710 ft/s)

The .223 did not offer a " advancement of bullet design" it used the
same old full jacketed, boat tail bullet that had been in use since at
least 1901.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 08:32:46 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 7:53:20 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 2/14/2022 9:48 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 9:26:52 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> >> On 2/12/2022 8:56 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 6:43:54 PM UTC-6, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 7:24:12 PM UTC-5, Tim R wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Some discussion earlier about the military mindset and tradition.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I read a fascinating book about the evolution of the military long arm over time, and there was violent disagreement from the earliest days over the choice of calibre which continues to this day. The title escapes me.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The original musket was in .69 caliber. By the Civil War this had shrunk to .58, over the bitter resistance of what they called gravel bellies. Soldiers could carry more ammo, so they British sshot more ammo, so somebody had to pay for, procure, and deliver more ammo.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> .45 caliber owned the late 1800s, with the .30 appearing near the end. The Phillippine conflict still had mostly trapdoor springfields in .45 but I the .30 Krag was used. Every reduction was fought ferociously by the oldtimers.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> There were extensive tests of lethality (sheep I think), range, and accuracy at Aberdeen Proving ground, and out to about 1000 yards the .276 did as well as the larger calibers.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> In Vietnam we went to .223, which I think is the sweet spot - smaller loses range and penetration, larger loses ability to carry enough ammo and recoil hurts accuracy for most soldiers. (I recently rewatched Zulu. Those rifles were Martini-Henrys in .577/.450, meaning they were a .577 cartridge case necked down to fire a .450 caliber 480 grain bullet. Recoil had to be extreme with that loading, and the average soldier probably weighed about 140.)
>> >>>
>> >>> Your description of caliber size decreasing over the centuries leaves out one pretty important fact. Gun powder changed from black powder to smokeless to whatever high tech propellant we are using today. Back with your original British Brown Bess .69 cartridge/.75 caliber, it was propelled with relatively weak black powder. By the time the 1898 Cuba war came along with Teddy leading the Rough Riders up the hill they were using smokeless powder in their .30-40 Krag rifles. And then I am guessing there were more advancements in gun powder leading up to Vietnam and the use of 5.56 NATO (.223). So with the smaller and skinnier bullets using more explosive propellant, the killing force, energy foot pounds of force delivered to the target, was the same or even more.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> +1
>> >
>> > Andrew, there has been almost no advancement in the composition of smokeless powders for over 100 years. The base of it is nitrocellulose and using anything with a faster burn would explode shells in their chambers. The only reason that the .223 caliber was used was that advancement of bullet design gave the striking power to that caliber to that of larger bullets with the advantage of being the able to carry additional ammunition without being excessively hindered by the weight.
>> >
>> Tom you are not a reloader.
>> Here are 154 different compositions and that's only one
>> vendor's web page
>>
>> https://www.brownells.com/reloading/powder/index.htm
>
>All of my guns, powder scale and bullet press have disappeared since my concussion. My younger brother is evasive about this but he is afraid of guns and I think that he made me get rid of everything when I was so malleable from the concussion. But I was a shooter and a reloader. I still have my super .357's in a box that my brother didn't know was there. Generally speaking you only reload because you shoot a very large amount. Buying factory loads is by far the safest thing to do and the difference in velocity and distance are miniscule. The Super loads I hand loaded are at the very edge of safety and to tell you the truth, regardless of what someone says, a .38 is more than sufficient for home defense. These .357's are more likely to go through someone and cause other problems. Everyone is presently buying 9 mm and the majority of ammunition for that caliber are hard point and the bullet generally goes through. My NCIS buddy won't use them because of that. Rather he uses a .357.
>That was issue since you might run up against a man with armor and a load like that would still knock him down.
>
>Remember when I said that you could burn yourself by holding a pistol and especially large calibers incorrectly and these idiots who have never even held a pistol let along fired one were outraged?

Nope you didn't say that. You said that you could buy one that would
give you 2nd, or maybe it was 3rd, degree burns when you fired it.

>
>The burn rate of smokeless powder is controlled by the amount of nitrocellulose in the powder - that means that there is a maximum rate at which it would burn and that also means that if you used anything that burned more rapidly, it would explode the cartridge in the rifle. You can STILL do this by overloading it with powder. They are presenting these various powders and a "scientific" development when it actually isn't. A slightly faster burning powder with less retardents of course worked better for lighter bullets. In order to get a clean rapid burn you want a cartridge to be filled with powder and not it shaking about loosely, so you chose a powder applicable to cartridge size and bullet weight that will accelerate the bullet down the length of the barrel without generating a burst pressure in the barrel. None of this is an "improvement" in technology but something that was carefully engineered by a particular GUN manufacturer and not the powder maker.

Nope wrong again both the shape and the ingredients of the powder
determine it's burning rate. The British made a "cordite" gun
propellant which was in strings, rather like spaghetti. Very slow
burning. Used in Elephant guns at one time. If you lit it outside the
gun it just burned.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 11:42:35 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2/13/2022 7:33 PM, John B. wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/13/2022 12:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> You're giving the advantages applicable to a combat weapon.
>>>> What's the advantage of making combat weapons available to every
>>>> fan of shoot-em-up video games? Is it that they can have more fun
>>>> "pretending" while they shoot at silhouette targets?
>>>>
>>>> Does that advantage really outweigh the proven risk of multiple mass
>>>> shootings, of risk to law enforcement officers, of risk to random bystanders?
>>>>
>>>> Why do so many other countries disagree? How do Canadians even manage?
>>>>
>
>> I think that the real point is that the U.S. Constitution - the basic
>> law of the land - assures the citizenry the right to own and bare
>> arms. I'm sure that some would wish that law didn't exist but it does.
>> And, I might add, it has been tested by the Supreme Court and, so far,
>> it remains in place.
>
>You're oversimplifying. "The right to bare [sic] arms" was established
>back around 1790 or so, in very different times. For roughly 200 years,
>case after case in the Supreme Court acknowledged that the preceding
>phrase regarding "A well-regulated militia" was important context
>informing that phrase; and that in any case, the amendment did NOT mean
>that any person could own any type of armament; that restrictions were
>necessary.
>
>Then the NRA became a heavily politicized tool of gun manufacturers and
>the extreme right wing. An organization that was once about
>marksmanship, with very rational positions (e.g. restrictions on
>concealed carry, restrictions on combat-optimized weapons) began
>opposing any and all restrictions on any and all kinds of guns. It
>helped fund political campaigns that resulted in a Supreme Court for
>which decades, perhaps centuries of precedents count less than the
>wishes of the far right.
>
>The Second Amendment worked pretty well as originally intended, in a
>nation that was almost all wilderness, with low-tech firearms and
>socially responsible patriots willing to join well-regulated militias.
>
>But that's not the modern world. I think that's why other modern
>civilized nations didn't repeat our Second Amendment mistakes.

You are rationalizing again. The right, or more accurately, order, to
own a firearm and ammunitions dates back to the earliest days in
American. The Virginia (1619) ordinance shown below issues a mandate
for persons to produce their arms at a particular place and time.

“All perfons whatfoever upon the Sabbath days fhall frequent
divine fervice and fermons both forenoon and afternoone; and
fhal bring their peices, Swordes, poulder, and fhott”[

Translated that says thay you are ordered to bring your guns and
ammunition to church (:-)

As for the NRA? Well democracy in action, one might say. Although like
all of your arguments you demonize it.

And, it might be noted that the U.S. since at least 1934 with the
National Firearms Act has had laws controlling various sorts of
firearms and individual States have their own laws regarding firearms.

But lets face it Frank, you live in an extremely criminal society with
the greatest number of convicted and incarcerated criminals in the
world. More then 10% higher then the next largest and 6 times greater
then Canada - that you like to mention. And, 5 to 7 times greater then
other developed nations.

As I've posted, it seems as though there are something like 20 million
AR type firearms, that you preach about, in the hands of USians and
yet FBI reports show that the number of "long guns" used in homicides
is less then any other firearm and even less then hands and feet.

Sit back, take a deep breath, and face reality. Guns don't kill
people, people kill people.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 11:59:46 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2/13/2022 8:05 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:04:06 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>> As I've pointed out repeatedly, the AR platform has several features
>>> that are optimized for combat situations. Compared to typical hunting
>>> rifles, it is more compact, lighter weight, has a bigger magazine
>>> capacity which can be easily expanded to ludicrous size, shoots rounds
>>> that are themselves light weight so more can be carried, has a pistol
>>> grip intended to keep control even when running, dodging, etc.
>>>
>>> The platform was originally designed with that combat use in mind. And
>>> none of those features are particularly useful for any other purpose,
>>> except _pretending_ to that use at a shooting range. Or just looking macho.
>>
>> But Frank... yes you can buy 30 round magazines for AR type rifles...
>> and you can buy 5 round magazines. And, contrary to your arguments it
>> is used extensively for target shooting as well as hunting ...
>
>30 round magazines seem to be the most typical. If ARs were absolutely
>restricted to five round magazines, I wouldn't mind them quite so much.
>Five rounds is fine for legitimate uses. 30 rounds is for battle.
>
>Do people target shoot ARs? Of course. But they're typically not
>practicing for hunting, because the gun isn't the most effective type
>for hunting. Nobody says "Grab your AR and lets get us some rabbits."
>Nobody says "Let's set our AR sights for 500 yards and go hunt elk."
>
>I believe most people who target shoot ARs have subconscious fantasies
>of blowing away The Other Guys. But only if it should become necessary,
>of course!

Frank, reality is that the demon AR type rifles, that seem to terrify
you so greatly, are used in very, very few homicides. In fact, as I
have posted, hands and feet are used in more homicides then AR type
guns.

And, from my experience, and I shot on both Base and Major Command
teams most people who shoot at targets have no subconscious fantasies.
The fact that you say so is evidence, I believe, that you don't know
what you are talking about.

Target shooters, at least those who have progressed past shooting at
tin cans in the yard are pretty serious people. The have to be as any
fantasy that they might have is destroyed after the first few shots.

But your prejudices are showing with all this ranting and raving about
30 round magazines. After all, I did point out that way back in 1917 -
one hundred years ago, the German Lugar, had an optional 30 round
magazine and a number of more modern pistols also have large
magazines. Hey! Way back in 1873 the Winchester, .44 carbine had a 10
round magazine.

In fact Frank it is becoming more and more obvious, as you continue to
post, that in fact you know very little about firearms in general and
certainly less about the AR type.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 11:11:56 -0800 (PST), Tim R
<timothy42bach@gmail.com> wrote:

>Whatever the actual numbers are, isn't it clear that the mass shootings are a tiny percentage of the homicides?
>And that the focus on the AR15 really is applicable only to that tiny percentage?
>
>I would do a couple things to reduce all gun homicides instead.

But given the high level of crime in the U.S., will banning guns
effect the homicide rate by a large percentage. Certainly the
anti-gunners claim it will. Which may be an over simplistic notion.

After all the U.S. banned the sale of alcoholic beverages from 1919,
with the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, banning the manufacture,
sale and transport of alcoholic beverages.

The results? A major increase in crime and, I have read, that while
the alcohol consumption rate did drop upon adoption of the new law it
returned to even higher levels within a couple of years. and inmates
in federal prisons was in the neighborhood of 3,000 and by 1932 the
federal prison population had increased some 366%.

What would be the effect of a gun ban?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 21:20:11 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 2:24:26 AM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 23:15:08 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 6:55:05 PM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 4:43:54 PM UTC-8, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> > On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 7:24:12 PM UTC-5, Tim R wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Some discussion earlier about the military mindset and tradition.
>> >> >
>> >> > I read a fascinating book about the evolution of the military long arm over time, and there was violent disagreement from the earliest days over the choice of calibre which continues to this day. The title escapes me.
>> >> >
>> >> > The original musket was in .69 caliber. By the Civil War this had shrunk to .58, over the bitter resistance of what they called gravel bellies. Soldiers could carry more ammo, so they British sshot more ammo, so somebody had to pay for, procure, and deliver more ammo.
>> >> >
>> >> > .45 caliber owned the late 1800s, with the .30 appearing near the end. The Phillippine conflict still had mostly trapdoor springfields in .45 but I the .30 Krag was used. Every reduction was fought ferociously by the oldtimers.
>> >> >
>> >> > There were extensive tests of lethality (sheep I think), range, and accuracy at Aberdeen Proving ground, and out to about 1000 yards the .276 did as well as the larger calibers.
>> >> >
>> >> > In Vietnam we went to .223, which I think is the sweet spot - smaller loses range and penetration, larger loses ability to carry enough ammo and recoil hurts accuracy for most soldiers. (I recently rewatched Zulu. Those rifles were Martini-Henrys in .577/.450, meaning they were a .577 cartridge case necked down to fire a .450 caliber 480 grain bullet. Recoil had to be extreme with that loading, and the average soldier probably weighed about 140.)
>> >> Recoil isn't very important. Women skeet shooter use 12 gauge full loads without having any problems shooting entire matches with guns that recoil a great deal more than the M1A. I couldn't even feel the recoil of the M1 carbine which shoots a 30 caliber round.
>> >
>> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErN5UNx5XqM
>> >Above is a video of a girl shooting an M1 Garand. Video is only 58 seconds in length. She is sitting at a table and the rifle is on a rest. For some reason her chair has wheels. But everytime she fires a 30-06 shell, her shoulder flies backwards 6 inches and her head snaps back off of the buttstock. A 30-06 rifle cartridge is not a light recoil weapon.
>> >
>> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Kig2kaHZEg
>> >This video is of a man firing the M1 Garand in 30-06. He handles the recoil better. He is standing. But it still kicks and recoils. It is not a light recoil weapon. Video is 2:14 in length and the M1 starts at about 25 second mark.
>> Well, I've shot the M1 in a number of rifle matches you (or I) are
>> concentrating on the sights and the target and it is more a matter of
>> getting back on target. The same in 12 gauge trap shooting. The bird
>> flies and you are concentrating on swinging the gun and leading and
>> honestly you hardly notice the recoil.
>>
>> Prone with the M1
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc6pKWqJ1QE
>> Standing with the M1
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xg1n3G43Q0
>> Girl shooting Trap
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2mW6wE_R78
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
>Girl? John, you need to get out there in the world a little bit more and look around some. Your perception might be getting a little too close to Tommy boy's.

Yes, I did think of that when I wrote it, I actually tried "Lady", and
some how that didn't sound right and "Female" or "Old Gal" didn't seem
to work either so I settled on "Girl" (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 22:15:34 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 11:35:04 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 21:20:11 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 2:24:26 AM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 23:15:08 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 6:55:05 PM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 4:43:54 PM UTC-8, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> > On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 7:24:12 PM UTC-5, Tim R wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Some discussion earlier about the military mindset and tradition.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I read a fascinating book about the evolution of the military long arm over time, and there was violent disagreement from the earliest days over the choice of calibre which continues to this day. The title escapes me.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The original musket was in .69 caliber. By the Civil War this had shrunk to .58, over the bitter resistance of what they called gravel bellies. Soldiers could carry more ammo, so they British sshot more ammo, so somebody had to pay for, procure, and deliver more ammo.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > .45 caliber owned the late 1800s, with the .30 appearing near the end. The Phillippine conflict still had mostly trapdoor springfields in .45 but I the .30 Krag was used. Every reduction was fought ferociously by the oldtimers.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > There were extensive tests of lethality (sheep I think), range, and accuracy at Aberdeen Proving ground, and out to about 1000 yards the .276 did as well as the larger calibers.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > In Vietnam we went to .223, which I think is the sweet spot - smaller loses range and penetration, larger loses ability to carry enough ammo and recoil hurts accuracy for most soldiers. (I recently rewatched Zulu. Those rifles were Martini-Henrys in .577/.450, meaning they were a .577 cartridge case necked down to fire a .450 caliber 480 grain bullet. Recoil had to be extreme with that loading, and the average soldier probably weighed about 140.)
>> >> >> Recoil isn't very important. Women skeet shooter use 12 gauge full loads without having any problems shooting entire matches with guns that recoil a great deal more than the M1A. I couldn't even feel the recoil of the M1 carbine which shoots a 30 caliber round.
>> >> >
>> >> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErN5UNx5XqM
>> >> >Above is a video of a girl shooting an M1 Garand. Video is only 58 seconds in length. She is sitting at a table and the rifle is on a rest. For some reason her chair has wheels. But everytime she fires a 30-06 shell, her shoulder flies backwards 6 inches and her head snaps back off of the buttstock. A 30-06 rifle cartridge is not a light recoil weapon.
>> >> >
>> >> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Kig2kaHZEg
>> >> >This video is of a man firing the M1 Garand in 30-06. He handles the recoil better. He is standing. But it still kicks and recoils. It is not a light recoil weapon. Video is 2:14 in length and the M1 starts at about 25 second mark.
>> >> Well, I've shot the M1 in a number of rifle matches you (or I) are
>> >> concentrating on the sights and the target and it is more a matter of
>> >> getting back on target. The same in 12 gauge trap shooting. The bird
>> >> flies and you are concentrating on swinging the gun and leading and
>> >> honestly you hardly notice the recoil.
>> >>
>> >> Prone with the M1
>> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc6pKWqJ1QE
>> >> Standing with the M1
>> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xg1n3G43Q0
>> >> Girl shooting Trap
>> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2mW6wE_R78
>> >> --
>> >> Cheers,
>> >>
>> >> John B.
>> >
>> >Girl? John, you need to get out there in the world a little bit more and look around some. Your perception might be getting a little too close to Tommy boy's.
>> Yes, I did think of that when I wrote it, I actually tried "Lady", and
>> some how that didn't sound right and "Female" or "Old Gal" didn't seem
>> to work either so I settled on "Girl" (:-)
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
>I think "Woman shooting Trap" would be the proper term to use. Keep it as generic and non descriptive as possible. When I saw "Girl shooting Trap" in the description, I was looking forward to a young, pretty, slim, trim "girl" shooting trap. I was very disappointed watching the video.

Well maybe. But the other day I read that "Negro" is a derogative term
so I'm a bit gun shy talking to USians. It seems, from what I read,
that the correct term in the U.S. is Afro-American, or perhaps
African-American, which makes me wonder about inhabitants of South
Africa (for example) are they Afro-Africans?

But more to the point what does one call people now. If I refer to
Andrew, or Frank as an "American" am I doing wrong? Should it be
Italian-American and Polish-American? And of course I am a WASP (:-)

And even worse I read that women are no longer Miss or Missus and are
now "Ms" and I can't even pronounce that (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 6:56:39 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 1:55:13 PM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 3:10:47 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 11:53:20 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > > On 2/14/2022 2:18 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 8:59:51 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I believe most people who target shoot ARs have subconscious fantasies
> > > > >> of blowing away The Other Guys. But only if it should become necessary,
> > > > >> of course!
> > > > >
> > > > > I would be willing to limit them to five rounds only if the first two went through your brain.
> > > > And that's precisely the type of fantasy I'm discussing. It's vulgar,
> > > > crude and cowardly. It should not be promoted, let alone glorified.
> > > Frank, YOUJUST FUCKING LIED ABOUT IT. You'd be OK if the magazines were limited to 5 rounds? That means to anyone with the use of English that you see AR15's as a threat. Tell us more of your damned lies. I'm sure that you can abuse English enough to try it.
> > tommy's temper tantrum #3247
> > "Magazines available up to 30 rounds for visiting gay bath houses" - Tom Kunich
> Flunky's support of lies #8,438.

Show me where Frank lied.
1) You're the one that mentioned limit to 5 rounds. Frank said nothing about that.
2) Frank does see AR15 style assault weapons as a threat. He's repeatedly stated that and hasn't made any statements to the contrary.

Show us the lie you pathetic moron.
"Magazines available up to 30 rounds for visiting gay bath houses" - Tom Kunich

On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 11:21:45 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> But given the high level of crime in the U.S., will banning guns
> effect the homicide rate by a large percentage. Certainly the
> anti-gunners claim it will. Which may be an over simplistic notion.
>

As a direct effect, no. And especially if the ban is directed at a particular type of weapon that seems scary but is rarely used in homicide. (I can't tell you how often I've heard this conversation: "We've got to do something!" "but, that won't actually have any effect because..." "I don't care, we've gotta do SOMETHING!")

Indirectly, possibly. Here's why I think that. Culture always trumps regulation and enforcement. The US is a culture that solves problems with violence including guns. Legislation with little direct effect can sometimes be part of a culture shift. It's annoying but possible. An example is the European law against spanking.

The first thing I'd do to reduce gun violence is get rid of the death penalty. Our legal and justice system has codified into our psyche that killing people is a good way to solve problems. That wouldn't have a large effect immediately, but it can be a part of an overall strategy to change some of our habits. Remember when they asked Ghandi what he thought about western civilization, he replied, "it would be a very good idea."

Everyone wants an easy fix. Not all problems have easy fixes.

On 2/14/2022 11:20 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 2:24:26 AM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 23:15:08 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 6:55:05 PM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 4:43:54 PM UTC-8, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 7:24:12 PM UTC-5, Tim R wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Some discussion earlier about the military mindset and tradition.
>>>>>
>>>>> I read a fascinating book about the evolution of the military long arm over time, and there was violent disagreement from the earliest days over the choice of calibre which continues to this day. The title escapes me.
>>>>>
>>>>> The original musket was in .69 caliber. By the Civil War this had shrunk to .58, over the bitter resistance of what they called gravel bellies. Soldiers could carry more ammo, so they British sshot more ammo, so somebody had to pay for, procure, and deliver more ammo.
>>>>>
>>>>> .45 caliber owned the late 1800s, with the .30 appearing near the end. The Phillippine conflict still had mostly trapdoor springfields in .45 but I the .30 Krag was used. Every reduction was fought ferociously by the oldtimers.
>>>>>
>>>>> There were extensive tests of lethality (sheep I think), range, and accuracy at Aberdeen Proving ground, and out to about 1000 yards the .276 did as well as the larger calibers.
>>>>>
>>>>> In Vietnam we went to .223, which I think is the sweet spot - smaller loses range and penetration, larger loses ability to carry enough ammo and recoil hurts accuracy for most soldiers. (I recently rewatched Zulu. Those rifles were Martini-Henrys in .577/.450, meaning they were a .577 cartridge case necked down to fire a .450 caliber 480 grain bullet. Recoil had to be extreme with that loading, and the average soldier probably weighed about 140.)
>>>> Recoil isn't very important. Women skeet shooter use 12 gauge full loads without having any problems shooting entire matches with guns that recoil a great deal more than the M1A. I couldn't even feel the recoil of the M1 carbine which shoots a 30 caliber round.
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErN5UNx5XqM
>>> Above is a video of a girl shooting an M1 Garand. Video is only 58 seconds in length. She is sitting at a table and the rifle is on a rest. For some reason her chair has wheels. But everytime she fires a 30-06 shell, her shoulder flies backwards 6 inches and her head snaps back off of the buttstock. A 30-06 rifle cartridge is not a light recoil weapon.
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Kig2kaHZEg
>>> This video is of a man firing the M1 Garand in 30-06. He handles the recoil better. He is standing. But it still kicks and recoils. It is not a light recoil weapon. Video is 2:14 in length and the M1 starts at about 25 second mark.
>> Well, I've shot the M1 in a number of rifle matches you (or I) are
>> concentrating on the sights and the target and it is more a matter of
>> getting back on target. The same in 12 gauge trap shooting. The bird
>> flies and you are concentrating on swinging the gun and leading and
>> honestly you hardly notice the recoil.
>>
>> Prone with the M1
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc6pKWqJ1QE
>> Standing with the M1
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xg1n3G43Q0
>> Girl shooting Trap
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2mW6wE_R78
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
> Girl? John, you need to get out there in the world a little bit more and look around some. Your perception might be getting a little too close to Tommy boy's.
>

OK I clicked the last video link. She actualy is shooting
trap. And she's good at it. What was your objection?

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

On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 5:44:44 PM UTC-8, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 13:49:42 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Not to mention the 35,000 auto deaths per year almost entirely due to speeding.
> Nope. Speeding only contributed to about 1/3 of the fatalities in the
> US.
>
> "Motor Vehicle Crash Deaths"
> <https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/motor-vehicle-safety/index.html>
>
> Major risk factors for crash deaths in the US.
> - Not using seat belts, car seats, and booster seats
> contributed to over 9,500 crash deaths.
> - Drunk driving contributed to more than 10,000 crash deaths.
> - Speeding contributed to more than 9,500 crash deaths.
>
> Incidentally, the number of deaths for 2020 were either 38,000 or
> 42,000 depending on whether you want to include accidents in driveways
> and parking lots, and include delayed fatalities up to a year after
> the accident:
> <https://www.vox.com/22675358/us-car-deaths-year-traffic-covid-pandemic>

On your brightest day you couldn't figure out how to close your front door lock. Drunk driving deaths are almost entirely from speeding. You cannot get killed from not wearing seat belts unless you get into an accident and in these cases either one of the other vehicle is speeding. You have absolutely no analytical ability so why do you think you have?

On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 2:57:47 AM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 6:56:39 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 1:55:13 PM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 3:10:47 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 11:53:20 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > > > On 2/14/2022 2:18 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 8:59:51 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I believe most people who target shoot ARs have subconscious fantasies
> > > > > >> of blowing away The Other Guys. But only if it should become necessary,
> > > > > >> of course!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would be willing to limit them to five rounds only if the first two went through your brain.
> > > > > And that's precisely the type of fantasy I'm discussing. It's vulgar,
> > > > > crude and cowardly. It should not be promoted, let alone glorified.
> > > > Frank, YOUJUST FUCKING LIED ABOUT IT. You'd be OK if the magazines were limited to 5 rounds? That means to anyone with the use of English that you see AR15's as a threat. Tell us more of your damned lies. I'm sure that you can abuse English enough to try it.
> > > tommy's temper tantrum #3247
> > > "Magazines available up to 30 rounds for visiting gay bath houses" - Tom Kunich
> > Flunky's support of lies #8,438.
> Show me where Frank lied.
> 1) You're the one that mentioned limit to 5 rounds. Frank said nothing about that.
> 2) Frank does see AR15 style assault weapons as a threat. He's repeatedly stated that and hasn't made any statements to the contrary.
>
> Show us the lie you pathetic moron.
> "Magazines available up to 30 rounds for visiting gay bath houses" - Tom Kunich

AQs a sickening disgusting POS I would have imagined you would understand that Frank sees AR15's as a threat simply from the fact that he wants to limit the magazine capacity to some arbitrarily low number. I realize that your low IQ doesn't allow you the ability to understand any of this but the Supreme Court with people a lot brighter than you could every even wish to believe you are has ruled that magazines cannot be limited by dumb asses like you or Frank. That must have really ruined your day when that decision was made.

Please, like Frank's good little puppy, make another attempt to distort the English Language when everything I said has been ruled true by the Supreme Court. I'll be waiting for more of your remote bravery.

On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 3:02:06 AM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 4:26:43 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 22:15:34 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> > <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 11:35:04 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 21:20:11 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> > >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 2:24:26 AM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> > >> >> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 23:15:08 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> > >> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 6:55:05 PM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> >> >> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 4:43:54 PM UTC-8, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> >> >> > On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 7:24:12 PM UTC-5, Tim R wrote:
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > Some discussion earlier about the military mindset and tradition.
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > I read a fascinating book about the evolution of the military long arm over time, and there was violent disagreement from the earliest days over the choice of calibre which continues to this day. The title escapes me.
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > The original musket was in .69 caliber. By the Civil War this had shrunk to .58, over the bitter resistance of what they called gravel bellies. Soldiers could carry more ammo, so they British sshot more ammo, so somebody had to pay for, procure, and deliver more ammo.
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > .45 caliber owned the late 1800s, with the .30 appearing near the end. The Phillippine conflict still had mostly trapdoor springfields in .45 but I the .30 Krag was used. Every reduction was fought ferociously by the oldtimers.
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > There were extensive tests of lethality (sheep I think), range, and accuracy at Aberdeen Proving ground, and out to about 1000 yards the .276 did as well as the larger calibers.
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > In Vietnam we went to .223, which I think is the sweet spot - smaller loses range and penetration, larger loses ability to carry enough ammo and recoil hurts accuracy for most soldiers. (I recently rewatched Zulu. Those rifles were Martini-Henrys in .577/.450, meaning they were a .577 cartridge case necked down to fire a .450 caliber 480 grain bullet. Recoil had to be extreme with that loading, and the average soldier probably weighed about 140.)
> > >> >> >> Recoil isn't very important. Women skeet shooter use 12 gauge full loads without having any problems shooting entire matches with guns that recoil a great deal more than the M1A. I couldn't even feel the recoil of the M1 carbine which shoots a 30 caliber round.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErN5UNx5XqM
> > >> >> >Above is a video of a girl shooting an M1 Garand. Video is only 58 seconds in length. She is sitting at a table and the rifle is on a rest. For some reason her chair has wheels. But everytime she fires a 30-06 shell, her shoulder flies backwards 6 inches and her head snaps back off of the buttstock. A 30-06 rifle cartridge is not a light recoil weapon.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Kig2kaHZEg
> > >> >> >This video is of a man firing the M1 Garand in 30-06. He handles the recoil better. He is standing. But it still kicks and recoils. It is not a light recoil weapon. Video is 2:14 in length and the M1 starts at about 25 second mark.
> > >> >> Well, I've shot the M1 in a number of rifle matches you (or I) are
> > >> >> concentrating on the sights and the target and it is more a matter of
> > >> >> getting back on target. The same in 12 gauge trap shooting. The bird
> > >> >> flies and you are concentrating on swinging the gun and leading and
> > >> >> honestly you hardly notice the recoil.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Prone with the M1
> > >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc6pKWqJ1QE
> > >> >> Standing with the M1
> > >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xg1n3G43Q0
> > >> >> Girl shooting Trap
> > >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2mW6wE_R78
> > >> >> --
> > >> >> Cheers,
> > >> >>
> > >> >> John B.
> > >> >
> > >> >Girl? John, you need to get out there in the world a little bit more and look around some. Your perception might be getting a little too close to Tommy boy's.
> > >> Yes, I did think of that when I wrote it, I actually tried "Lady", and
> > >> some how that didn't sound right and "Female" or "Old Gal" didn't seem
> > >> to work either so I settled on "Girl" (:-)
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Cheers,
> > >>
> > >> John B.
> > >
> > >I think "Woman shooting Trap" would be the proper term to use. Keep it as generic and non descriptive as possible. When I saw "Girl shooting Trap" in the description, I was looking forward to a young, pretty, slim, trim "girl" shooting trap. I was very disappointed watching the video.
> > Well maybe. But the other day I read that "Negro" is a derogative term
> > so I'm a bit gun shy talking to USians. It seems, from what I read,
> > that the correct term in the U.S. is Afro-American, or perhaps
> > African-American, which makes me wonder about inhabitants of South
> > Africa (for example) are they Afro-Africans?
> >
> > But more to the point what does one call people now. If I refer to
> > Andrew, or Frank as an "American" am I doing wrong? Should it be
> > Italian-American and Polish-American? And of course I am a WASP (:-)
> >
> > And even worse I read that women are no longer Miss or Missus and are
> > now "Ms" and I can't even pronounce that (:-)
> > --
> hmm...did you think maybe of dropping the gender all together? I mean, you wrote "prone with the M1" and "standing with the M1", you didn't use any gender with either of those. Why was it important to include gender in "shooting trap"?
> "Magazines available up to 30 rounds for visiting gay bath houses" - Tom Kunich

When you've never shot trap or even a high powered rifle why are you continuing to act like you have. You're not a man and have never been. Go suck off your boyfriend.

On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 5:35:04 AM UTC-8, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 11:21:45 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> > But given the high level of crime in the U.S., will banning guns
> > effect the homicide rate by a large percentage. Certainly the
> > anti-gunners claim it will. Which may be an over simplistic notion.
> >
> As a direct effect, no. And especially if the ban is directed at a particular type of weapon that seems scary but is rarely used in homicide. (I can't tell you how often I've heard this conversation: "We've got to do something!" "but, that won't actually have any effect because..." "I don't care, we've gotta do SOMETHING!")
>
> Indirectly, possibly. Here's why I think that. Culture always trumps regulation and enforcement. The US is a culture that solves problems with violence including guns. Legislation with little direct effect can sometimes be part of a culture shift. It's annoying but possible. An example is the European law against spanking.
>
> The first thing I'd do to reduce gun violence is get rid of the death penalty. Our legal and justice system has codified into our psyche that killing people is a good way to solve problems. That wouldn't have a large effect immediately, but it can be a part of an overall strategy to change some of our habits. Remember when they asked Ghandi what he thought about western civilization, he replied, "it would be a very good idea."
>
> Everyone wants an easy fix. Not all problems have easy fixes.

The 2nd Amendment has been put in place specifically for the problems that we presently have - a government that is the enemy of the people and the Constitution. But over and over and over, the left has used tactics to put the fear of guns into the younger generation in the hopes of being able to get rid of the one thing that prevents the government from absolute tyranny. Look at what Trudeau has just done - proclaimed an entirely peaceful protest to be essentially the opening volley of a war. Biden CANNOT do this here and if he tried I would not want to be a National Guard member. If he tried to use the military what would occur is that the entire Marine Corp would immediately change sides to the conservatives. As would the Army Rangers and the Navy Seals. These people take their oaths to support the Constitution of the United States to heart. Any officer ordering a Marine to fire upon civilians would immediately find himself either shot or taken into custody pending Courts Marshal for Treason and THEN shot.

On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 5:46:03 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/14/2022 11:20 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 2:24:26 AM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> >> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 23:15:08 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 6:55:05 PM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 4:43:54 PM UTC-8, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 7:24:12 PM UTC-5, Tim R wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Some discussion earlier about the military mindset and tradition.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I read a fascinating book about the evolution of the military long arm over time, and there was violent disagreement from the earliest days over the choice of calibre which continues to this day. The title escapes me.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The original musket was in .69 caliber. By the Civil War this had shrunk to .58, over the bitter resistance of what they called gravel bellies.. Soldiers could carry more ammo, so they British sshot more ammo, so somebody had to pay for, procure, and deliver more ammo.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> .45 caliber owned the late 1800s, with the .30 appearing near the end. The Phillippine conflict still had mostly trapdoor springfields in .45 but I the .30 Krag was used. Every reduction was fought ferociously by the oldtimers.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There were extensive tests of lethality (sheep I think), range, and accuracy at Aberdeen Proving ground, and out to about 1000 yards the .276 did as well as the larger calibers.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In Vietnam we went to .223, which I think is the sweet spot - smaller loses range and penetration, larger loses ability to carry enough ammo and recoil hurts accuracy for most soldiers. (I recently rewatched Zulu. Those rifles were Martini-Henrys in .577/.450, meaning they were a .577 cartridge case necked down to fire a .450 caliber 480 grain bullet. Recoil had to be extreme with that loading, and the average soldier probably weighed about 140.)
> >>>> Recoil isn't very important. Women skeet shooter use 12 gauge full loads without having any problems shooting entire matches with guns that recoil a great deal more than the M1A. I couldn't even feel the recoil of the M1 carbine which shoots a 30 caliber round.
> >>>
> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErN5UNx5XqM
> >>> Above is a video of a girl shooting an M1 Garand. Video is only 58 seconds in length. She is sitting at a table and the rifle is on a rest. For some reason her chair has wheels. But everytime she fires a 30-06 shell, her shoulder flies backwards 6 inches and her head snaps back off of the buttstock. A 30-06 rifle cartridge is not a light recoil weapon.
> >>>
> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Kig2kaHZEg
> >>> This video is of a man firing the M1 Garand in 30-06. He handles the recoil better. He is standing. But it still kicks and recoils. It is not a light recoil weapon. Video is 2:14 in length and the M1 starts at about 25 second mark.
> >> Well, I've shot the M1 in a number of rifle matches you (or I) are
> >> concentrating on the sights and the target and it is more a matter of
> >> getting back on target. The same in 12 gauge trap shooting. The bird
> >> flies and you are concentrating on swinging the gun and leading and
> >> honestly you hardly notice the recoil.
> >>
> >> Prone with the M1
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc6pKWqJ1QE
> >> Standing with the M1
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xg1n3G43Q0
> >> Girl shooting Trap
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2mW6wE_R78
> >> --
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> John B.
> >
> > Girl? John, you need to get out there in the world a little bit more and look around some. Your perception might be getting a little too close to Tommy boy's.
> >
> OK I clicked the last video link. She actualy is shooting
> trap. And she's good at it. What was your objection?

Russell and Flunky have the idea that a woman can do anything a man can. This was the same BS by which they were attempting to put women into combat. They do not have the physical strength and fortitude to protect themselves in such conditions and hence become a burden upon the men who of needs must then protect them.

These guys have never fired a 12 gauge or high powered rifle and yet are pretending knowledge they don't have. I have never seen woman, even good trap shooters fire even a full box of 12 gauge and trap shot are light. I think that they more commonly were shooting 20 gauge. It fit their physique much better.

On 2/14/2022 10:10 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 11:59:46 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 2/13/2022 8:05 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:04:06 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>
>>>> As I've pointed out repeatedly, the AR platform has several features
>>>> that are optimized for combat situations. Compared to typical hunting
>>>> rifles, it is more compact, lighter weight, has a bigger magazine
>>>> capacity which can be easily expanded to ludicrous size, shoots rounds
>>>> that are themselves light weight so more can be carried, has a pistol
>>>> grip intended to keep control even when running, dodging, etc.
>>>>
>>>> The platform was originally designed with that combat use in mind. And
>>>> none of those features are particularly useful for any other purpose,
>>>> except _pretending_ to that use at a shooting range. Or just looking macho.
>>>
>>> But Frank... yes you can buy 30 round magazines for AR type rifles...
>>> and you can buy 5 round magazines. And, contrary to your arguments it
>>> is used extensively for target shooting as well as hunting ...
>>
>> 30 round magazines seem to be the most typical. If ARs were absolutely
>> restricted to five round magazines, I wouldn't mind them quite so much.
>> Five rounds is fine for legitimate uses. 30 rounds is for battle.
>>
>> Do people target shoot ARs? Of course. But they're typically not
>> practicing for hunting, because the gun isn't the most effective type
>> for hunting. Nobody says "Grab your AR and lets get us some rabbits."
>> Nobody says "Let's set our AR sights for 500 yards and go hunt elk."
>>
>> I believe most people who target shoot ARs have subconscious fantasies
>> of blowing away The Other Guys. But only if it should become necessary,
>> of course!
>
> Frank, reality is that the demon AR type rifles, that seem to terrify
> you...

Let's stop there. AR's don't terrify me any more than Tom Kunich does. I
put ARs in the same category as the several macho pickup trucks I noted
during our long-ish drive yesterday.

The pickup trucks don't terrify me. They inspire mockery. I saw
spotlessly clean trucks even now, when most vehicles here are covered
with salt spray. Trucks that factory stylists purposely designed to look
intimidating ("Like it's coming for you" is a direct quote of an
industry guy). Trucks that then got jacked up an additional foot or so.
And then had oversized tires and rims added, that stick out six inches
beyond the body work on each side. Trucks being driven with their bright
headlights on, all the time. Trucks with loud exhausts. These are ALWAYS
the type of truck that "rolls coal," the ones that have been purposely
modified to blow clouds of smoke at cyclists and others. These are
ALWAYS the type of truck that have blocked the charging stations of
electric cars.

Yes, pickup trucks have utility in some situations. But the dudes
driving those modified show-off things are not hauling big hay bales or
towing their farm tractors. If they were, the trucks wouldn't be so
shiny. They are like the first guy in our town that had one - a
seriously undersized guy with a huge need to compensate, to look and
feel tough.

I think people who fetishize their ARs or their huge pickup trucks are
both compensating. I think "I can fire thirty rounds in ten seconds" is
in the same category as "I can run your little car over if you don't get
out of my way."

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 9:29:25 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/14/2022 10:10 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 11:59:46 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> > <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/13/2022 8:05 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:04:06 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> As I've pointed out repeatedly, the AR platform has several features
> >>>> that are optimized for combat situations. Compared to typical hunting
> >>>> rifles, it is more compact, lighter weight, has a bigger magazine
> >>>> capacity which can be easily expanded to ludicrous size, shoots rounds
> >>>> that are themselves light weight so more can be carried, has a pistol
> >>>> grip intended to keep control even when running, dodging, etc.
> >>>>
> >>>> The platform was originally designed with that combat use in mind. And
> >>>> none of those features are particularly useful for any other purpose,
> >>>> except _pretending_ to that use at a shooting range. Or just looking macho.
> >>>
> >>> But Frank... yes you can buy 30 round magazines for AR type rifles...
> >>> and you can buy 5 round magazines. And, contrary to your arguments it
> >>> is used extensively for target shooting as well as hunting ...
> >>
> >> 30 round magazines seem to be the most typical. If ARs were absolutely
> >> restricted to five round magazines, I wouldn't mind them quite so much..
> >> Five rounds is fine for legitimate uses. 30 rounds is for battle.
> >>
> >> Do people target shoot ARs? Of course. But they're typically not
> >> practicing for hunting, because the gun isn't the most effective type
> >> for hunting. Nobody says "Grab your AR and lets get us some rabbits."
> >> Nobody says "Let's set our AR sights for 500 yards and go hunt elk."
> >>
> >> I believe most people who target shoot ARs have subconscious fantasies
> >> of blowing away The Other Guys. But only if it should become necessary,
> >> of course!
> >
> > Frank, reality is that the demon AR type rifles, that seem to terrify
> > you...
>
> Let's stop there. AR's don't terrify me any more than Tom Kunich does. I
> put ARs in the same category as the several macho pickup trucks I noted
> during our long-ish drive yesterday.
>
> The pickup trucks don't terrify me. They inspire mockery. I saw
> spotlessly clean trucks even now, when most vehicles here are covered
> with salt spray. Trucks that factory stylists purposely designed to look
> intimidating ("Like it's coming for you" is a direct quote of an
> industry guy). Trucks that then got jacked up an additional foot or so.
> And then had oversized tires and rims added, that stick out six inches
> beyond the body work on each side. Trucks being driven with their bright
> headlights on, all the time. Trucks with loud exhausts. These are ALWAYS
> the type of truck that "rolls coal," the ones that have been purposely
> modified to blow clouds of smoke at cyclists and others. These are
> ALWAYS the type of truck that have blocked the charging stations of
> electric cars.
>
> Yes, pickup trucks have utility in some situations. But the dudes
> driving those modified show-off things are not hauling big hay bales or
> towing their farm tractors. If they were, the trucks wouldn't be so
> shiny. They are like the first guy in our town that had one - a
> seriously undersized guy with a huge need to compensate, to look and
> feel tough.
>
> I think people who fetishize their ARs or their huge pickup trucks are
> both compensating. I think "I can fire thirty rounds in ten seconds" is
> in the same category as "I can run your little car over if you don't get
> out of my way."

Frank, when are you going to admit that everything terrifies you. Pickup trucks use to be a utility vehicle. But when people move from the farm into the city they became nothing more than a toy. And the industry took advantage of that by making them bigger and more intimidating and that class of people started buying them. When you need a step-ladder to get into the bed of the pickup it is no longer a utility vehicle. It is only something that can frighten people like you and you then cover your fear with ridicule. What you cannot stand is that the courts do not support your ideals.

On 2/14/2022 3:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/14/2022 1:15 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 2:11:59 PM UTC-5, timoth...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>> Whatever the actual numbers are, isn't it clear that the mass
>>> shootings are a tiny percentage of the homicides?
>>> And that the focus on the AR15 really is applicable only to that tiny
>>> percentage?
>>>
>>> I would do a couple things to reduce all gun homicides instead.
>>
>>   That sounds like you're advocating a more broad based approach to
>> gun control, rather than focusing on assault weapons?
>> "Magazines available up to 30 rounds for visiting gay bath houses" -
>> Tom Kunich
>>
>
> Few 'mass' events are jihadis or maniacs, fewer still with AR-15 or any
> long gun:
>
> https://abcnews.go.com/US/dead-injured-early-morning-shooting-bar/story?id=77147828
>
>
> Then again, firearms are only a subset of violence. Ever 'borrow' tools?
> Always return them promptly!
>
> https://923wnpc.com/morristown-man-killed-over-dispute-about-tools/
>
> Not that any murder is 'OK' but, in the world as we find it, there are
> much larger problems, such as hospital-acquired fatal sepsis for 70,000
> Americans per yer and steadily growing, despite efforts (or feints?) to
> control it. All equally dead.

Andrew, I think you've overused the "much larger problems" phrase.

First, if your shop were burglarized, I don't think you'd want cops to
say "We're not going to bother investigating that or recover your goods.
Home burglaries are a bigger problem these days." After all, society can
work on multiple problems simultaneously.

But more important, there's no universally agreed list of biggest
problems. Indeed, there's serious disagreement. (I'm always astonished
that the ludicrous "The government will take all our guns away!" is
considered a bigger problem than tens of thousands of annual gun deaths.)

Feel free to give us your personal list of Most Important Problems. We
could discuss.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 9:43:22 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/14/2022 3:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 2/14/2022 1:15 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 2:11:59 PM UTC-5, timoth...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>> Whatever the actual numbers are, isn't it clear that the mass
> >>> shootings are a tiny percentage of the homicides?
> >>> And that the focus on the AR15 really is applicable only to that tiny
> >>> percentage?
> >>>
> >>> I would do a couple things to reduce all gun homicides instead.
> >>
> >> That sounds like you're advocating a more broad based approach to
> >> gun control, rather than focusing on assault weapons?
> >> "Magazines available up to 30 rounds for visiting gay bath houses" -
> >> Tom Kunich
> >>
> >
> > Few 'mass' events are jihadis or maniacs, fewer still with AR-15 or any
> > long gun:
> >
> > https://abcnews.go.com/US/dead-injured-early-morning-shooting-bar/story?id=77147828
> >
> >
> > Then again, firearms are only a subset of violence. Ever 'borrow' tools?
> > Always return them promptly!
> >
> > https://923wnpc.com/morristown-man-killed-over-dispute-about-tools/
> >
> > Not that any murder is 'OK' but, in the world as we find it, there are
> > much larger problems, such as hospital-acquired fatal sepsis for 70,000
> > Americans per yer and steadily growing, despite efforts (or feints?) to
> > control it. All equally dead.
> Andrew, I think you've overused the "much larger problems" phrase.
>
> First, if your shop were burglarized, I don't think you'd want cops to
> say "We're not going to bother investigating that or recover your goods.
> Home burglaries are a bigger problem these days." After all, society can
> work on multiple problems simultaneously.
>
> But more important, there's no universally agreed list of biggest
> problems. Indeed, there's serious disagreement. (I'm always astonished
> that the ludicrous "The government will take all our guns away!" is
> considered a bigger problem than tens of thousands of annual gun deaths.)
>
> Feel free to give us your personal list of Most Important Problems. We
> could discuss.

Frank, why would you include the number of rounds of ammunition in the clip of a gun that is used in only 3% of the crimes using guns? Why do you think that pickup trucks shouldn't be advertised the way they are? We can agree that they are no longer utility vehicles but neither is an SUV the size of a tractor. Do those also bother you?

On 2/15/2022 11:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/14/2022 10:10 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 11:59:46 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/13/2022 8:05 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:04:06 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As I've pointed out repeatedly, the AR platform has
>>>>> several features
>>>>> that are optimized for combat situations. Compared to
>>>>> typical hunting
>>>>> rifles, it is more compact, lighter weight, has a
>>>>> bigger magazine
>>>>> capacity which can be easily expanded to ludicrous
>>>>> size, shoots rounds
>>>>> that are themselves light weight so more can be
>>>>> carried, has a pistol
>>>>> grip intended to keep control even when running,
>>>>> dodging, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> The platform was originally designed with that combat
>>>>> use in mind. And
>>>>> none of those features are particularly useful for any
>>>>> other purpose,
>>>>> except _pretending_ to that use at a shooting range. Or
>>>>> just looking macho.
>>>>
>>>> But Frank... yes you can buy 30 round magazines for AR
>>>> type rifles...
>>>> and you can buy 5 round magazines. And, contrary to your
>>>> arguments it
>>>> is used extensively for target shooting as well as
>>>> hunting ...
>>>
>>> 30 round magazines seem to be the most typical. If ARs
>>> were absolutely
>>> restricted to five round magazines, I wouldn't mind them
>>> quite so much.
>>> Five rounds is fine for legitimate uses. 30 rounds is for
>>> battle.
>>>
>>> Do people target shoot ARs? Of course. But they're
>>> typically not
>>> practicing for hunting, because the gun isn't the most
>>> effective type
>>> for hunting. Nobody says "Grab your AR and lets get us
>>> some rabbits."
>>> Nobody says "Let's set our AR sights for 500 yards and go
>>> hunt elk."
>>>
>>> I believe most people who target shoot ARs have
>>> subconscious fantasies
>>> of blowing away The Other Guys. But only if it should
>>> become necessary,
>>> of course!
>>
>> Frank, reality is that the demon AR type rifles, that seem
>> to terrify
>> you...
>
> Let's stop there. AR's don't terrify me any more than Tom
> Kunich does. I put ARs in the same category as the several
> macho pickup trucks I noted during our long-ish drive
> yesterday.
>
> The pickup trucks don't terrify me. They inspire mockery. I
> saw spotlessly clean trucks even now, when most vehicles
> here are covered with salt spray. Trucks that factory
> stylists purposely designed to look intimidating ("Like it's
> coming for you" is a direct quote of an industry guy).
> Trucks that then got jacked up an additional foot or so. And
> then had oversized tires and rims added, that stick out six
> inches beyond the body work on each side. Trucks being
> driven with their bright headlights on, all the time. Trucks
> with loud exhausts. These are ALWAYS the type of truck that
> "rolls coal," the ones that have been purposely modified to
> blow clouds of smoke at cyclists and others. These are
> ALWAYS the type of truck that have blocked the charging
> stations of electric cars.
>
> Yes, pickup trucks have utility in some situations. But the
> dudes driving those modified show-off things are not hauling
> big hay bales or towing their farm tractors. If they were,
> the trucks wouldn't be so shiny. They are like the first guy
> in our town that had one - a seriously undersized guy with a
> huge need to compensate, to look and feel tough.
>
> I think people who fetishize their ARs or their huge pickup
> trucks are both compensating. I think "I can fire thirty
> rounds in ten seconds" is in the same category as "I can run
> your little car over if you don't get out of my way."
>

You don't like some truck fashions, which is fine. meh.

But I'm surprised there's not an Ohio statute on tire/wheel
protrusion (or at least I could not find it in OH statutes).
It's an actual safety issue and most States have such a
requirement.

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

On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 9:52:26 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/15/2022 11:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 2/14/2022 10:10 PM, John B. wrote:
> >> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 11:59:46 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2/13/2022 8:05 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:04:06 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> As I've pointed out repeatedly, the AR platform has
> >>>>> several features
> >>>>> that are optimized for combat situations. Compared to
> >>>>> typical hunting
> >>>>> rifles, it is more compact, lighter weight, has a
> >>>>> bigger magazine
> >>>>> capacity which can be easily expanded to ludicrous
> >>>>> size, shoots rounds
> >>>>> that are themselves light weight so more can be
> >>>>> carried, has a pistol
> >>>>> grip intended to keep control even when running,
> >>>>> dodging, etc.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The platform was originally designed with that combat
> >>>>> use in mind. And
> >>>>> none of those features are particularly useful for any
> >>>>> other purpose,
> >>>>> except _pretending_ to that use at a shooting range. Or
> >>>>> just looking macho.
> >>>>
> >>>> But Frank... yes you can buy 30 round magazines for AR
> >>>> type rifles...
> >>>> and you can buy 5 round magazines. And, contrary to your
> >>>> arguments it
> >>>> is used extensively for target shooting as well as
> >>>> hunting ...
> >>>
> >>> 30 round magazines seem to be the most typical. If ARs
> >>> were absolutely
> >>> restricted to five round magazines, I wouldn't mind them
> >>> quite so much.
> >>> Five rounds is fine for legitimate uses. 30 rounds is for
> >>> battle.
> >>>
> >>> Do people target shoot ARs? Of course. But they're
> >>> typically not
> >>> practicing for hunting, because the gun isn't the most
> >>> effective type
> >>> for hunting. Nobody says "Grab your AR and lets get us
> >>> some rabbits."
> >>> Nobody says "Let's set our AR sights for 500 yards and go
> >>> hunt elk."
> >>>
> >>> I believe most people who target shoot ARs have
> >>> subconscious fantasies
> >>> of blowing away The Other Guys. But only if it should
> >>> become necessary,
> >>> of course!
> >>
> >> Frank, reality is that the demon AR type rifles, that seem
> >> to terrify
> >> you...
> >
> > Let's stop there. AR's don't terrify me any more than Tom
> > Kunich does. I put ARs in the same category as the several
> > macho pickup trucks I noted during our long-ish drive
> > yesterday.
> >
> > The pickup trucks don't terrify me. They inspire mockery. I
> > saw spotlessly clean trucks even now, when most vehicles
> > here are covered with salt spray. Trucks that factory
> > stylists purposely designed to look intimidating ("Like it's
> > coming for you" is a direct quote of an industry guy).
> > Trucks that then got jacked up an additional foot or so. And
> > then had oversized tires and rims added, that stick out six
> > inches beyond the body work on each side. Trucks being
> > driven with their bright headlights on, all the time. Trucks
> > with loud exhausts. These are ALWAYS the type of truck that
> > "rolls coal," the ones that have been purposely modified to
> > blow clouds of smoke at cyclists and others. These are
> > ALWAYS the type of truck that have blocked the charging
> > stations of electric cars.
> >
> > Yes, pickup trucks have utility in some situations. But the
> > dudes driving those modified show-off things are not hauling
> > big hay bales or towing their farm tractors. If they were,
> > the trucks wouldn't be so shiny. They are like the first guy
> > in our town that had one - a seriously undersized guy with a
> > huge need to compensate, to look and feel tough.
> >
> > I think people who fetishize their ARs or their huge pickup
> > trucks are both compensating. I think "I can fire thirty
> > rounds in ten seconds" is in the same category as "I can run
> > your little car over if you don't get out of my way."
> >
> You don't like some truck fashions, which is fine. meh.
>
> But I'm surprised there's not an Ohio statute on tire/wheel
> protrusion (or at least I could not find it in OH statutes).
> It's an actual safety issue and most States have such a
> requirement.

That is probably the most widely ignored law. Tires protruding from the wheel wells though garbage onto the windscreen of the car behind and are a clear danger, Here the issuance of speeding tickets is so rare that it is an event.