On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 19:25:09 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 6:47:40 PM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 4:29:38 PM UTC-8, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 3:14:50 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Add in through wounds, fragments unrecovered, and you have
>> > > an 'indeterminate' area.
>> > > --
>> > > Andrew Muzi
>> > > <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>> > > Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>> > I think there is a risk of interpreting indeterminant to mean they couldn't tell, rather than that they didn't say.
>> >
>> > Certainly for a suicide, if you don't have the gun available, there's a problem!
>> >
>> > For a homicide it would be very rare to mistake a rifle wound for a pistol wound - true there are some carbines that fire pistol rounds, are these really likely to be common murder weapons? They are not concealable or commonly carried by criminals.
>> It is rare for rifles to shoot pistol rounds and when they do they have higher velocities which are easily distinguished by the damage from the bullet. It is extremely rare that rifles are used even in mass murders. The one in that school had the purp carrying an AR-14 I believe, but he committed all of the killings with a hand gun. ONE teacher with a handgun would have stopped that shooting on the spot. People that commit mass murders do so because they believe, rightfully in California at least, that they will be completely unopposed.
>
>So you want to arm teachers with handguns? I think Texas has tried to pass laws like this. Do you think its a good idea? I know the dream, illusion, fantasy, of the one armed good guy shooting the bad guy is a popular myth amongst some. Like you I guess. But is it practical? I know you never ever even attended school. But let me tell you about it. From about 7th grade onwards, I was physically able to beat up and physically overwhelm all but a few of my teachers. Male or female. Now there were a few male teachers that only a few of the boys could take in a fight. The big future football linemen boys could likely take them. But none of the regular sized kids. Teachers are not Arnold Schwarzenegger sized. They are generally average sized and likely old. And junior high and high school boys are getting up there in size and strength. They are not at their peak, but they are not weak. And more than strong enough to physically dominate all women. We are not talking about
>elementary school kids. So you think its good policy to have readily accessible guns available for kids, young adults, to use? I use the term "readily accessible guns" because almost all junior high and high school males could easily take a gun from a teacher.

I just don't know. Growing up in rural New England I'd guess that
every "farm kid" had been exposed to firearms, at least every family I
can remember visiting had a 12 gauge shotgun in a corner somewhere.
How else would you keep the fox out of the chicken house? And hunting
- for food as well as sport was common. and I don't remember any "mass
shootings".

I would add that I had a .22, single shot, Winchester, rifle at the
age of 12. Paid for it by sawing stove wood for a month, afternoons
after school. (:-)

But then, I don't remember any bad actors. If you acted up in school
they would call your parents to fetch you and that would be the end of
any hooliganism. Those kids were nice as pie from that date on :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 19:56:52 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 4:29:38 PM UTC-8, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 3:14:50 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>> >
>> > Add in through wounds, fragments unrecovered, and you have
>> > an 'indeterminate' area.
>> > --
>> > Andrew Muzi
>> > <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>> > Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>> I think there is a risk of interpreting indeterminant to mean they couldn't tell, rather than that they didn't say.
>>
>> Certainly for a suicide, if you don't have the gun available, there's a problem!
>>
>> For a homicide it would be very rare to mistake a rifle wound for a pistol wound - true there are some carbines that fire pistol rounds, are these really likely to be common murder weapons? They are not concealable or commonly carried by criminals.
>
>The city near me is having trouble with gang bangers shooting it out on the streets. Cops are shown on TV marking the
>locations of multiple shell casings on the street. Those could have come from fancy exotic handguns, but I think AR style
>rifles are much easier to get.
>
>Recently there was a kid, maybe about age 4, killed while sitting inside a home. I don't think they ever determined what
>kind of gun did that.
>
>- Frank Krygowski

But, I recently came across some homicide data that may be
interesting.
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/cniijq/nonfirearm_vs_firearm_homicide_rate_in_developed/
The U.S. has the highest non-firearm homicide in the world, except for
Estonia. Add that to what country has the most people in prison, and
serious violence levels, etc.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 19:59:47 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 4:32:16 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 03:43:00 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 1:04:02 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 20:43:11 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >38 Police Special: "pew pew pew pew pew pew" and slowly
>> >> >reload.
>> >> >
>> >> >Typical AR15: "pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew
>> >> >pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew."
>> >> >
>> >> >You know, for hunting.
>> >> Well... people who never race by racing bicycles (:-) and even worse,
>> >> I've got a friend lives on a 45 ft boat and bought "mountain bike"
>> >
>> >The next time you hear of a racing bicycle being used to murder 26 children at an elementary school, let us know.
>> Good Lord! 26 is a paltry number. Timothy McVeigh got 168 without
>> firing a shot.
>>
>> (maybe we should outlaw rental trucks?)
>
>Again, please try to think in terms of benefits vs. detriments.
>
>The benefits of rental trucks are many and various.
>
>The benefits of AR--style rifles is the owner gets to feel like a tough guy when he plays with his toy.
>
>- Frank Krygowski

Yawn... and the benefit of the bloke on the $10,000 bicycle is? Oh!
That's right! Thundering down the road at 12 miles an hour dreaming
that he is leading the pack in the TdeF!
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 20:33:14 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 6:18:55 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 11:29:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> Can we again consider advantages
>> >and disadvantages? I shouldn't have to point out that hands and feet
>> >have countless practical uses, and that life without them would be
>> >difficult. (The same is true of knives, BTW.)
>> So you would condone beating someone to death with hands and feet
>> because they have practical uses? And knives? O.K. I guess....
>>
>> BUT WAIT! In 1994, about 800,000 Tutsi people were slaughtered in
>> Rwanda by ethnic Hutu extremists, largely with clubs and knives. Then
>> the Largely Tutsi Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) seized power and
>> returned the favor, killing thousands of Hutu's. Again largely with
>> knives and clubs.
>
>ISTM that the problems of Tutsis vs. Hutus in 1994 are considerably different than the problem of
>gun violence in the U.S. in 2022. There probably are groups discussing Rwanda's problems. I'm not
>interested in that change of topic.

Very selective. You imply that it's O.K. to kill someone with hands
and feet, or even a knife and I suggest an incident where thousands
were killed with hands, feet and knives and you tell us, oh just
ignore that. So it is O.K. hers bit not there or yp8u believe that
some 800,000 deaths are, well, meaningless?

And this fetish with AR type firearms?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/
showing that146 hand guns were used in 98 incidents while "long guns"
used 87 weapons in 69 incidents.
or maybe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
which lists 25 mass shootings and semi automatic rifles or carbines
were used in 14 and in only 5 of those 14 cases was a rifle or carbine
the sole weapon.

But I suppose that we all have our little idiosyncrasies. As I posted
in another message Timothy McVeigh, in 1995 killed 168 people with
some fertilized and diesel fuel. Compared with your mass shootings he
certainly "takes the cake" with better then double the numbers at the
worst mass shooting I see recorded.
If volume is a criteria then we really should be monitoring the sale
of fertilizer.

But that really isn't the subject is it. AR type firearms are just
Sooo scary. We should ban them!!!
But Hey! What about them automatic pistols with the big magazines? I
read that a Glock 18 can be loaded with 20 rounds and a Glock 17 can
be loaded with 31 round magazine and blast them off in about 1.5
seconds... makes an AR look like an Old Lady's gun.
And... the Kel-Tec PMR 30 has a standard capacity of 30 rounds. And,
Luger pistol had a 32 round magazine, way back in WW I.

It seems like you ought to be damming those as they all will come
close or exceed the poor old AR.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 21:33:05 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 11:12:18 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:43:52 -0800 (PST), Tim R
>> <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 caliber 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.
>> The Philippine thing was from about 1899 to 1913, including the Moro
>> Rebellion. The Krag was issued, at least in limited quantities - I've
>> read 30,000 - during the Spanish-American War, in 1898. I would have
>> thought that they would have been available in the Philippines within
>> a reasonable time after August 1898,
>>
>> Supposedly the 1911 Colt .45 was made the "service pistol" to stop
>> charging Moro's although I suspect that in fact the U.S had been
>> looking at "automatic" to replace the revolver before the 1911.
>> >
>> >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.)
>> A couple of comments. Recoil of a 9 pound, black powder, weapon is
>> really not severe. The Garand weighed about that weight and I shot on
>> the Base Rifle team for a bit and had no problems with "rapid fire"
>> with standard issue ammunition. The .577/450 had a muzzle energy of
>> about 1,940 ft·lb and the 30-06, 180 gr., about 2,913 ft·lbf
>>
>> Re the M-16 type. Yes the Infantry "basic load" was about 7 x 30
>> rounds = 210 rounds for the M16 and only 80 for the Garand. But on the
>> other hand the firing rate for the M16 was ~700 RPM and 40 - 50 RPM
>> for the Garand. Sustained fire, disregarding reloading time was about
>> 20 seconds for the M16 and 96 seconds for the Garand (:-)
>>
>> And troops did run out of ammunition. At least one unit of Aussies ran
>> out of ammo during the Battle of Long Tan and without U.S. helicopter
>> support would have been overrun.
>>
>> As an aside, I got to know a number of Special Forces troops while at
>> Nha Trang - I used to eat in their Mess - and I was told that they
>> could "carry any gun they wanted to" and surprisingly a number seemed
>> to refer AK-47's.
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
>I don't know when you were in Vietnam, but in the early years of Vietnam, or the first few years of the M16 being issued, it was not the most reliable weapon. It tended to jam in the jungle, mud, swamp of Vietnam. But later versions were modified and cleaning kits were issued for the rifles and they became more reliable. I have read the AK47 was a very reliable gun that never needed cleaning and just worked forever. It was, is, cheap and simple. Perfect for the Russian army and perfect for all the third world countries using the AK47 today. Rifle hygiene is not a prerogative in many of these places.

Yes, while I was in 'Nam my father sent me a newspaper clipping about
all the trouble with the M16 and as I said I used to eat in the
Special Forces Mess and they did the initial test of the M-16 in a
jungle environment. I asked them about this "jamming" thing and the
guy I was talking with told me that in the year or so that they had
tested the gun they "Never had a malfunction!" and then went on to
say, "but of course we cleaned ours".

Later the NRA did some studies and the basic problem was said to be
that they changed the type of powder used, from ball powder to stick
or whatever. And that originally the Army had not issued cleaning kits
for the gun and somewhere I read that there was an instruction manual
that stated that because of the chrome lined barrel that cleaning was
unnecessary.

But then the Garand would bite your thumb if you weren't very careful
in pressing the clip into the magazine, and, the M2 Carbine would
sometimes go full automatic and the Colt .45 would, occasionally empty
the magazine with one trigger pull... which would wake you right up,
and a lot of the bombs dropped in Cambodia and Laos haven't gone off
yet, and, and (:-)
! --
Cheers,

John B.

On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 5:45:50 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 12:56:20 PM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 10:52:00 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > ALL Army Generals including Robert E. Lee were educated in West Point..
> > And as usual, Tommy bloviates bullshit. Since WWII there have been 25 Chiefs of Staff of the United States Army. Of those, the following 6 (24%) did _not_ go to west point:
> >
> > George Catlett Marshall Jr. in 1939 Marshall became acting Chief of Staff, and then the 15th Chief of Staff, a position he held until the war's end in 1945. Marshall graduated from the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) in 1901.
> >
> > George Henry Decker served as Chief of Staff of the United States Army from 1960 to 1962. Decker attended Lafayette College in Easton, Pennsylvania, receiving an economics degree in 1924.
> >
> > Frederick Carlton Weyand served as the 28th Chief of Staff of the United States Army from 1974 to 1976. Weyand was commissioned a second lieutenant in the United States Army through the Reserve Officers Training Corps program at the University of California, Berkeley, where he graduated in May 1938.
> >
> > Gordon Russell Sullivan served as the 32nd Chief of Staff of the Army and as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Sullivan also served as acting Secretary of the Army. He was commissioned a second lieutenant of Armor and awarded a Bachelor of Arts degree in history from Norwich University in 1959.
> >
> > Peter Jan Schoomaker served as the 35th Chief of Staff of the United States Army from August 1, 2003 to April 10, 2007. Schoomaker graduated from the University of Wyoming in 1969 with a Bachelor of Science degree in education administration.
> >
> > Mark Alexander Milley serves as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He previously served as the 39th chief of staff of the Army from August 14, 2015 to August 9, 2019. Milley Princeton University on a hockey scholarship.[5][11] There, he joined the Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC)[12] and in 1980 graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in politics.
> >
> > That's just Chiefs of Staff of the United States Army. Further down the chain of command the ratio of non-West Point graduates to West Point graduates becomes much higher.
> >
> > Feel free to post any links disputing the information above - or shut the fuck up - and no, the fact that I was never in the army doesn't exclude me from posting the facts above - hint: you weren't in the army either.
> > > When you act like a pin-head, you get treated as a pin-head.
> > Which explains the treatment of you in this forum quite succinctly.
> >
> > "Magazines available up to 30 rounds for visiting people like Flunky and all of his close friends at the gay bath houses. " - Tom Kunich
>
> I have some information for you turd breath, Chief of Staff is NOT a military appointment - it is political.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that everyone I listed is a General in the army, and none of the ones I listed went to west point - contrary to your claim "ALL Army Generals including Robert E. Lee were educated in West Point." Attempting to change the subject will not change the glaring fact that once again, you're completely full of shit.

> Or that stupid bastard that is the there presently couldn't even get in the door.

Of course not, I mean, after all, Milley was appointed to chairman of the joint chiefs by trump. (and now you're going to come back with some ludicrous assertion that trump was forced into it - which of course would only confirm trump complete impotence.)

> One of the thousands of things wrong with you is that you have never been anywhere, done anything or have any knowledge of anything.

lol...Sure sparky.

> Don't worry though, you don't have to worry about being drafted after your boy Biden starts a war with Russia.

Right, a russian invasion of Ukraine would be "biden starting a war with russia", and 'ALL generals went to west point'

> To get in the military you have to have a minimum IQ of 83 and on the best day of your life you couldn't even dream that large.

The military doesn't qualify based on IQ. If they did you would have been laughed out of the recruiting office. Besides, you're the one insisting all army generals go to west point, and that biden could somehow reinstitute the draft that would include 60 year old men. Gawd yer fucking stupid.

"Magazines available up to 30 rounds for visiting people like Flunky and all of his close friends at the gay bath houses. " - Tom Kunich

On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 6:57:28 PM UTC-5, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 14:45:48 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >To get in the military you have to have a minimum IQ of 83 ...
>
> Nope.
> <https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/after-service/201801/are-military-members-the-lowest-our-low>
> US military does not use an IQ score, but instead uses the similar
> ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery) test where the
> score is the applicants percentile score when compared to other
> applicants.
>
> "To qualify, recruits must score higher than roughly one-third of all
> who take the ASVAB. The lowest acceptable percentile score to join is
> 36 for the Air Force, 35 for the Navy, 32 for the Marine Corps, and 31
> for the Army."
>
> "By definition, the worst test taker who makes it into the military
> still scores higher than one-third of his or her peers. The military
> intentionally slices off the bottom third of test-takers, not allowing
> them to join."
>
> Tom. Bad news:
> "Pew reports that 98 percent of the enlisted force has at least a high
> school diploma."
> That puts you in the lowest 2% of the military.
> <https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2011/10/05/chapter-6-a-profile-of-the-modern-military/>
> See the section under "Education Levels" for more details. Maybe 2%
> is a bit optimistic:
> "About eight-in-ten active-duty military personnel are high school
> graduates or have completed at least a year of college or other
> postsecondary training. Nearly two-in-ten (17.9%) are college
> graduates or have an advanced degree, while only 0.6% never finished
> high school."
>
> Drivel:
> "Replacing a gunner who scores around the 20th percentile with one who
> scores around the 55th percentile improves the likelihood of hitting a
> target by 34 percent."

This explains why they only ever let tommy carry a tool box.

On 2/13/2022 2:49 AM, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 20:33:14 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 6:18:55 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 11:29:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> Can we again consider advantages
>>>> and disadvantages? I shouldn't have to point out that hands and feet
>>>> have countless practical uses, and that life without them would be
>>>> difficult. (The same is true of knives, BTW.)
>>> So you would condone beating someone to death with hands and feet
>>> because they have practical uses? And knives? O.K. I guess....
>>>
>>> BUT WAIT! In 1994, about 800,000 Tutsi people were slaughtered in
>>> Rwanda by ethnic Hutu extremists, largely with clubs and knives. Then
>>> the Largely Tutsi Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) seized power and
>>> returned the favor, killing thousands of Hutu's. Again largely with
>>> knives and clubs.
>>
>> ISTM that the problems of Tutsis vs. Hutus in 1994 are considerably different than the problem of
>> gun violence in the U.S. in 2022. There probably are groups discussing Rwanda's problems. I'm not
>> interested in that change of topic.
>
> Very selective. You imply that it's O.K. to kill someone with hands
> and feet, or even a knife ...

I didn't come close to implying that. Please don't emulate Tom Kunich.
If you disagree with me, discuss what I actually said, not what you wish
I said.

What is the advantage to letting anyone who wants one buy a combat-style
rifle? Why should the U.S. be so lax when other developed countries are
so much more reasonable restrictions, and those restrictions seem to
cause no problems?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 3:35:28 AM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 5:45:50 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 12:56:20 PM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 10:52:00 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ALL Army Generals including Robert E. Lee were educated in West Point.
> > > And as usual, Tommy bloviates bullshit. Since WWII there have been 25 Chiefs of Staff of the United States Army. Of those, the following 6 (24%) did _not_ go to west point:
> > >
> > > George Catlett Marshall Jr. in 1939 Marshall became acting Chief of Staff, and then the 15th Chief of Staff, a position he held until the war's end in 1945. Marshall graduated from the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) in 1901.
> > >
> > > George Henry Decker served as Chief of Staff of the United States Army from 1960 to 1962. Decker attended Lafayette College in Easton, Pennsylvania, receiving an economics degree in 1924.
> > >
> > > Frederick Carlton Weyand served as the 28th Chief of Staff of the United States Army from 1974 to 1976. Weyand was commissioned a second lieutenant in the United States Army through the Reserve Officers Training Corps program at the University of California, Berkeley, where he graduated in May 1938.
> > >
> > > Gordon Russell Sullivan served as the 32nd Chief of Staff of the Army and as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Sullivan also served as acting Secretary of the Army. He was commissioned a second lieutenant of Armor and awarded a Bachelor of Arts degree in history from Norwich University in 1959.
> > >
> > > Peter Jan Schoomaker served as the 35th Chief of Staff of the United States Army from August 1, 2003 to April 10, 2007. Schoomaker graduated from the University of Wyoming in 1969 with a Bachelor of Science degree in education administration.
> > >
> > > Mark Alexander Milley serves as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He previously served as the 39th chief of staff of the Army from August 14, 2015 to August 9, 2019. Milley Princeton University on a hockey scholarship.[5][11] There, he joined the Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC)[12] and in 1980 graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in politics.
> > >
> > > That's just Chiefs of Staff of the United States Army. Further down the chain of command the ratio of non-West Point graduates to West Point graduates becomes much higher.
> > >
> > > Feel free to post any links disputing the information above - or shut the fuck up - and no, the fact that I was never in the army doesn't exclude me from posting the facts above - hint: you weren't in the army either.
> > > > When you act like a pin-head, you get treated as a pin-head.
> > > Which explains the treatment of you in this forum quite succinctly.
> > >
> > > "Magazines available up to 30 rounds for visiting people like Flunky and all of his close friends at the gay bath houses. " - Tom Kunich
> >
> > I have some information for you turd breath, Chief of Staff is NOT a military appointment - it is political.
> Which has nothing to do with the fact that everyone I listed is a General in the army, and none of the ones I listed went to west point - contrary to your claim "ALL Army Generals including Robert E. Lee were educated in West Point." Attempting to change the subject will not change the glaring fact that once again, you're completely full of shit.
> > Or that stupid bastard that is the there presently couldn't even get in the door.
> Of course not, I mean, after all, Milley was appointed to chairman of the joint chiefs by trump. (and now you're going to come back with some ludicrous assertion that trump was forced into it - which of course would only confirm trump complete impotence.)
> > One of the thousands of things wrong with you is that you have never been anywhere, done anything or have any knowledge of anything.
> lol...Sure sparky.
>
> > Don't worry though, you don't have to worry about being drafted after your boy Biden starts a war with Russia.
>
> Right, a russian invasion of Ukraine would be "biden starting a war with russia", and 'ALL generals went to west point'
> > To get in the military you have to have a minimum IQ of 83 and on the best day of your life you couldn't even dream that large.
> The military doesn't qualify based on IQ. If they did you would have been laughed out of the recruiting office. Besides, you're the one insisting all army generals go to west point, and that biden could somehow reinstitute the draft that would include 60 year old men. Gawd yer fucking stupid.
> "Magazines available up to 30 rounds for visiting people like Flunky and all of his close friends at the gay bath houses. " - Tom Kunich
And every one of these none-West Pointers are about to start yet another forever war without the ability to lead men in battle.

On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 3:37:09 AM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 6:57:28 PM UTC-5, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 14:45:48 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> > <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >To get in the military you have to have a minimum IQ of 83 ...
> >
> > Nope.
> > <https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/after-service/201801/are-military-members-the-lowest-our-low>
> > US military does not use an IQ score, but instead uses the similar
> > ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery) test where the
> > score is the applicants percentile score when compared to other
> > applicants.
> >
> > "To qualify, recruits must score higher than roughly one-third of all
> > who take the ASVAB. The lowest acceptable percentile score to join is
> > 36 for the Air Force, 35 for the Navy, 32 for the Marine Corps, and 31
> > for the Army."
> >
> > "By definition, the worst test taker who makes it into the military
> > still scores higher than one-third of his or her peers. The military
> > intentionally slices off the bottom third of test-takers, not allowing
> > them to join."
> >
> > Tom. Bad news:
> > "Pew reports that 98 percent of the enlisted force has at least a high
> > school diploma."
> > That puts you in the lowest 2% of the military.
> > <https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2011/10/05/chapter-6-a-profile-of-the-modern-military/>
> > See the section under "Education Levels" for more details. Maybe 2%
> > is a bit optimistic:
> > "About eight-in-ten active-duty military personnel are high school
> > graduates or have completed at least a year of college or other
> > postsecondary training. Nearly two-in-ten (17.9%) are college
> > graduates or have an advanced degree, while only 0.6% never finished
> > high school."
> >
> > Drivel:
> > "Replacing a gunner who scores around the 20th percentile with one who
> > scores around the 55th percentile improves the likelihood of hitting a
> > target by 34 percent."
> This explains why they only ever let tommy carry a tool box.

Does it explain why I'm worth 40 times what you are?

On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 7:57:54 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/13/2022 2:49 AM, John B. wrote:
> > On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 20:33:14 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
> > <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 6:18:55 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 11:29:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> Can we again consider advantages
> >>>> and disadvantages? I shouldn't have to point out that hands and feet
> >>>> have countless practical uses, and that life without them would be
> >>>> difficult. (The same is true of knives, BTW.)
> >>> So you would condone beating someone to death with hands and feet
> >>> because they have practical uses? And knives? O.K. I guess....
> >>>
> >>> BUT WAIT! In 1994, about 800,000 Tutsi people were slaughtered in
> >>> Rwanda by ethnic Hutu extremists, largely with clubs and knives. Then
> >>> the Largely Tutsi Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) seized power and
> >>> returned the favor, killing thousands of Hutu's. Again largely with
> >>> knives and clubs.
> >>
> >> ISTM that the problems of Tutsis vs. Hutus in 1994 are considerably different than the problem of
> >> gun violence in the U.S. in 2022. There probably are groups discussing Rwanda's problems. I'm not
> >> interested in that change of topic.
> >
> > Very selective. You imply that it's O.K. to kill someone with hands
> > and feet, or even a knife ...
>
> I didn't come close to implying that. Please don't emulate Tom Kunich.
> If you disagree with me, discuss what I actually said, not what you wish
> I said.
>
> What is the advantage to letting anyone who wants one buy a combat-style
> rifle? Why should the U.S. be so lax when other developed countries are
> so much more reasonable restrictions, and those restrictions seem to
> cause no problems?

Frank, tell us what a "combat style" weapon is. You seem to be very good at idiotic comments based on your mental image without a single definition.

On 2/12/2022 8:31 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 5:57:28 PM UTC-6, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 14:45:48 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> To get in the military you have to have a minimum IQ of 83 ...
>>
>> Nope.
>> <https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/after-service/201801/are-military-members-the-lowest-our-low>
>> US military does not use an IQ score, but instead uses the similar
>> ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery) test where the
>> score is the applicants percentile score when compared to other
>> applicants.
>>
>> "To qualify, recruits must score higher than roughly one-third of all
>> who take the ASVAB. The lowest acceptable percentile score to join is
>> 36 for the Air Force, 35 for the Navy, 32 for the Marine Corps, and 31
>> for the Army."
>>
>> "By definition, the worst test taker who makes it into the military
>> still scores higher than one-third of his or her peers. The military
>> intentionally slices off the bottom third of test-takers, not allowing
>> them to join."
>>
>> Tom. Bad news:
>> "Pew reports that 98 percent of the enlisted force has at least a high
>> school diploma."
>> That puts you in the lowest 2% of the military.
>> <https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2011/10/05/chapter-6-a-profile-of-the-modern-military/>
>> See the section under "Education Levels" for more details. Maybe 2%
>> is a bit optimistic:
>> "About eight-in-ten active-duty military personnel are high school
>> graduates or have completed at least a year of college or other
>> postsecondary training. Nearly two-in-ten (17.9%) are college
>> graduates or have an advanced degree, while only 0.6% never finished
>> high school."
>>
>> Drivel:
>> "Replacing a gunner who scores around the 20th percentile with one who
>> scores around the 55th percentile improves the likelihood of hitting a
>> target by 34 percent."
>> --
>> Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
>> PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
>> Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
>> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
>
> Is this correct? Or a better question, does the above testing apply to officer candidates or to non officer enlisted personnel? I have seen numerous articles about the recruiting of low ranking enlisted personnel and they do everything they can to get anyone to fill the spots. So it seems hard to believe they would then throw out 1/3 of the recruits because they are too dumb. Through out history, the military has always been considered a last resort option for anyone who had no hope upon leaving high school. Join the military as a private and get a job and money and training. Officer is different. Since you have to have a college degree to become an officer in the military. And if you obtain a college degree, then you probably have a brightish future. I should state that the above applies from about 1975 until today. From roughly 1975 and back, all the high school graduating men had to go to college, serve a couple years in the military, or have a physical defect exempti
on. But from about 1975 onwards, the only ones going into the military were the ones who wanted to. And for many it was the only economic option.
>

I can't draw any conclusions but one of the top losses of
personnel in our modern military is motor vehicle crashes,
and has been for decades. The Army studied the area and
concluded there's a relationship between aptitude test
scores and MV errors, along with other effects such as the
gunner effectiveness noted above.

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

On 2/12/2022 8:56 PM, russellseaton1@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 Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 2/12/2022 9:25 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 6:47:40 PM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 4:29:38 PM UTC-8, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 3:14:50 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Add in through wounds, fragments unrecovered, and you have
>>>> an 'indeterminate' area.

>>> I think there is a risk of interpreting indeterminant to mean they couldn't tell, rather than that they didn't say.
>>>
>>> Certainly for a suicide, if you don't have the gun available, there's a problem!
>>>
>>> For a homicide it would be very rare to mistake a rifle wound for a pistol wound - true there are some carbines that fire pistol rounds, are these really likely to be common murder weapons? They are not concealable or commonly carried by criminals.
>> It is rare for rifles to shoot pistol rounds and when they do they have higher velocities which are easily distinguished by the damage from the bullet. It is extremely rare that rifles are used even in mass murders. The one in that school had the purp carrying an AR-14 I believe, but he committed all of the killings with a hand gun. ONE teacher with a handgun would have stopped that shooting on the spot. People that commit mass murders do so because they believe, rightfully in California at least, that they will be completely unopposed.
>
> So you want to arm teachers with handguns? I think Texas has tried to pass laws like this. Do you think its a good idea? I know the dream, illusion, fantasy, of the one armed good guy shooting the bad guy is a popular myth amongst some. Like you I guess. But is it practical? I know you never ever even attended school. But let me tell you about it. From about 7th grade onwards, I was physically able to beat up and physically overwhelm all but a few of my teachers. Male or female. Now there were a few male teachers that only a few of the boys could take in a fight. The big future football linemen boys could likely take them. But none of the regular sized kids. Teachers are not Arnold Schwarzenegger sized. They are generally average sized and likely old. And junior high and high school boys are getting up there in size and strength. They are not at their peak, but they are not weak. And more than strong enough to physically dominate all women. We are not talking abo
ut elementary school kids. So you think its good policy to have readily accessible guns available for kids, young adults, to use? I use the term "readily accessible guns" because almost all junior high and high school males could easily take a gun from a teacher.
>

It's an idea whose time never quite comes as there are a
gazillion confounding factors, not the least of which is
mass/muscle in close quarters, as you note.

With a million or so K-12 teachers the rule of large numbers
factors in with negligent discharges, simple theft,
misplaced firearms (left on car roof as driver pulls
away...) and the like. Each anomaly will be hailed as proof
positive for one position or another.

Another is psychological capacity. I've talked a couple
dozen people (mostly women) out of purchasing a firearm when
asked for advice as they were utterly incapable of using one
/in extremis/. When push comes to shove, they'd be killed
with their own weapon.

Then again not prohibiting education industry staff from
carrying seems sensible to me as there are among them, as in
any group, individuals who are skilled and prepared, the
sort of people who turn bad situations into good outcomes:

http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/never.jpg

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

On 2/12/2022 9:42 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 8:18:55 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 11:29:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/12/2022 1:35 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 20:46:19 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/11/2022 8:37 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 7:35:23 PM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/11/2022 7:16 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 15:38:47 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2022 10:51 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 20:11:51 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2022 7:04 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 10:44:34 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2022 1:43 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It might be that the Air Gun was the most effective weapon that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expedition carried as while I can't find a specific statement that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Girandoni was rifled...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It was rifled.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> See https://youtu.be/2dZLeEUE940?t=189
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting. Very innovative. The first rifled long guns in the U.S.
>>>>>>>>>>>> army date to about 1800 and in the British Army about the same period.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I defer to you on official War Department procurement, since
>>>>>>>>>>> I have no idea.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But I do know something about our Founding. Paul Revere and
>>>>>>>>>>> William Dawes left Boston on horseback at night* because
>>>>>>>>>>> some 700-odd of the British garrison had marched out at
>>>>>>>>>>> midnight* for Lexington where the most accurate _long
>>>>>>>>>>> rifles_ on the continent were manufactured. They took a
>>>>>>>>>>> circuitous route but did arrive at Lexington in time and the
>>>>>>>>>>> results, including the forced withdrawal at Concord, were
>>>>>>>>>>> our 'shot heard round the world'. A result in our favor was
>>>>>>>>>>> critically due to the superior range and accuracy of long
>>>>>>>>>>> rifles against smooth bore British issue muskets.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 18 April, 1775.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> * 1775! No streetlights, no headlamps, no paved rural roads.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I've read the stories and yes, British troops were marching to
>>>>>>>>>> seize stores of gun powder and some arms at Lexington, and yes, I've
>>>>>>>>>> read stories about the Minute Men snipping from behind fences but I
>>>>>>>>>> doubt greatly whether many rifles were used, although admittedly this
>>>>>>>>>> seems to be a constant theme in U.S. history.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But, where did these "rifles" come from? The average farmer had no
>>>>>>>>>> requirement for an expensive rifled gun, a smooth bore was far cheaper
>>>>>>>>>> and far more versatile for use on the farm.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Additionally there were no organized munitions makers in the U.S. and
>>>>>>>>>> rifles were made one at a time, and were extremely expensive. Kenneth
>>>>>>>>>> Roberts in the historical novel Arundel, based on actual diaries of
>>>>>>>>>> the 1775 Quebec Campaign, mentions used rifles with accoutrements
>>>>>>>>>> exchanged for 12-15 English pounds. A smooth bore at the time might be
>>>>>>>>>> 2 pounds and 4 shillings. To get an idea of how much this was there is
>>>>>>>>>> a record of a John Moll paying 45 pounds for a 60’ X 230’ building lot
>>>>>>>>>> in Allentown in 1772. And, William Carlin, a tailor in colonial
>>>>>>>>>> Alexandria who made clothes for field hands as well as the planter
>>>>>>>>>> elite, charged £3-5 for an ordinary wool suit.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Some of the greatest support furnished by the French to the
>>>>>>>>>> revolutionists was in the form of muskets and gun power. In the
>>>>>>>>>> Battles of Saratoga on September 19 and October 7, 1777, it is
>>>>>>>>>> estimated that as many as nine out of 10 American soldiers carried
>>>>>>>>>> French arms, and were completely dependent on French gunpowder.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I was engaged in a discussion on currency debasement policy
>>>>>>>>> (popularly called 'inflation') and remembered your post
>>>>>>>>> above so I checked the NPV of 14 Sterling in 1775.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Current value 2400 pounds or US$3200. For reference, your
>>>>>>>>> average popular modern rifle runs somewhere around $2000.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So you make a good point that premium equipment of the era
>>>>>>>>> was pricey. No wonder Louis sent muskets!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Typical selections:
>>>>>>>>> https://blog.gunassociation.org/best-rifles/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/guns/rifles/centerfire/2011/11/20-best-semi-automatic-rifles-big-game-hunting/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> where $3000 rifles are at the far end of 'popular', most are
>>>>>>>>> below $2000, and the range is $800 to $7000
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was "into" gun smithing for a while and actually gave some thought
>>>>>>>> to doing it as a business after I left the Military, and "back then",
>>>>>>>> say the 1960's a good "deer rifle" with iron sights was in the $200
>>>>>>>> range. And, disregarding my Military pay and allowances, I was making
>>>>>>>> $10 a day part time in a gunsmith shop (:-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Disregarding "Home Defense" mentioned in your reference above, my
>>>>>>>> grandfather used a Winchester lever action 38-55 as a "deer rifle" and
>>>>>>>> killed his one deer a year under his license (and sometimes two if
>>>>>>>> the Game Warden was down at the other end of the state) and had one
>>>>>>>> packet of, I think it was 20 rounds, that he'd been using for
>>>>>>>> something like 10 years.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which might say something about AR-15's, and other shoot em up,
>>>>>>>> bang,bang, guns as hunting rifles (:-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>>> We've been over this here on RBT at least a dozen times over
>>>>>>> the years. My AR-15 repeats at the exact same speed as my
>>>>>>> .38 Police Special revolver. Both are faster than
>>>>>>> girlfriend's inherited .30 Winchester vintage lever, but not
>>>>>>> by all that much. None of those are magic lead-spraying
>>>>>>> pew-pew-pew television weapons.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Andrew Muzi
>>>>>>> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>>>>>>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your AR-15 has a 20 or 30 shot magazine. Most likely .223 Remington or NATO ammunition. Your Police Special has 6 shots. The 5 shot S&W only became common fairly recently. The lever action likely has a 7 or 8 or 9 round tube fed ammo holding system. So roughly the AR-15 has 5 times the revolver capacity and 4 times the rifle capacity. You can easily fire two shots per second. Bang-bang. Thats one second. Maybe you can even fire three rounds per second.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At the June 12, 2016 Orlando Florida mass shooting at a GAY nightclub, a SIG Sauer MCX semi-automatic rifle (it is an AR-15) and a Glock 17 semi auto pistol were used. 49 people killed, 53 wounded.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_nightclub_shooting#Weapons
>>>>>> "In less than five minutes, Mateen had fired approximately 200 rounds, pausing only to reload." That works out to a little more than 40 rounds per minute. One and a half seconds per shot. Not too fast I guess.
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_MCX
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock#Glock_17
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It wasn't until October 2017, a whole year and 3 months later, that Orlando lost its crown as the biggest mass shooting in US history. That is when the Las Vegas concert killer used the bump stock device on his AR-15 rifles to kill 60 and wound 411.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting#Weaponry
>>>>>> "Paddock was found to have fired a total of 1,058 rounds from fifteen of the firearms: 1,049 from twelve AR-15-style rifles, eight from two AR-10-style rifles, and the round used to kill himself from the Smith & Wesson revolver."
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> meh.
>>>>>
>>>>> And every day (more than usual this week) there are multiple
>>>>> stabbings and sword/machete murders.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.wate.com/news/sword-attack-in-indiana-leaves-2-dead-1-wounded/
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Sword-wielding-man-shot-by-New-Braunfels-police-16836088.php
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/police-find-man-decapitating-girlfriend-with-machete-in-philadelphia/ar-AATJCVg
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/man-accused-of-attacking-lakewood-store-employee-with-machete-police-say/ar-AATJXiV
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.thedailybeast.com/karla-jackelin-morales-allegedly-lured-jose-villanueva-to-ms-13-machete-death-and-skipped-bail
>>>>>
>>>>> I skip the stabbings/slashings with knives/razors which are
>>>>> frequent.
>>>>>
>>>>> Turns out that by not prosecuting/detaining criminals,
>>>>> mayhem results. Weapon of choice may vary but the results
>>>>> are fungibly similar.
>>>>
>>>> But when you say "GUN" Ohoooo it is so scary.
>>>>
>>>> As has been discussed before, the FBI records show that in 2015 "long
>>>> guns" killed 463 victims and hands and feet killed 651.
>>>>
>>>> But a news article announcing "Oh Yes, he was kicked to death" is sort
>>>> of, well sort of every day, and far less thrilling that "He was shot,
>>>> 17 times!"
>>>
>>> As we've mentioned before: Data on U.S. gun crime generally shows a
>>> small number of homicides by "long gun" or "rifle." But it shows a large
>>> number by unspecified "firearm," a separate category from "handgun." I
>>> assume that means that the type of gun was undetermined. And I think
>>> it's reasonable to say a large portion of those undetermined cases are
>>> in fact ARs.
>> Is it reasonable? Or simply another example of "gun terror"?
>>
>> Looking at the chart
>> https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
>> we see that of the total 10,258 cases of a firearm used in a homicide
>> some 6,368, or 62% were hand guns and some 3,281 or 31% were stated to
>> be "not noted".
>>
>> Is it reasonable to argue that every one of these "not noted" firearms
>> was a pistol? Or simply a fantasy to justify a pre-conceived notion.
>>> And regarding hands and feet vs. semi-automatic, easily customized,
>>> large magazine assault-style rifles: Can we again consider advantages
>>> and disadvantages? I shouldn't have to point out that hands and feet
>>> have countless practical uses, and that life without them would be
>>> difficult. (The same is true of knives, BTW.)
>> So you would condone beating someone to death with hands and feet
>> because they have practical uses? And knives? O.K. I guess....
>>
>> BUT WAIT! In 1994, about 800,000 Tutsi people were slaughtered in
>> Rwanda by ethnic Hutu extremists, largely with clubs and knives. Then
>> the Largely Tutsi Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) seized power and
>> returned the favor, killing thousands of Hutu's. Again largely with
>> knives and clubs.
>>
>> .>
>>> What are the advantages and disadvantages of AR-style weaponry? Well, a
>>> disadvantage is that those guns are the weapon of choice for crackpots
>>> choosing to blow away bunches of kids in a schoolroom, a bunch of people
>>> in a night club, a bunch of people at a music concert, etc. Also, their
>>> widespread presence makes the job of a cop much more difficult, since
>>> it's easy for them to be out-gunned. (That's something almost no other
>>> developed countries have to worry about).
>> Well, one might ask, what are the advantages and disadvantages of, oh
>> say, plastic bicycles (selling for upwards of $10,000)? Or even what
>> is the advantage and disadvantage of a bicycle as it seems that
>> something less then 9% of U.S. families do not own a car and other
>> sources state that in 2019 some 267,894,860 autos were registered in
>> the U.S.
>>
>> Very much an affection one might say - "Oh! Look! Everybody! I'm
>> riding to work today on my bicycle! But of course, that is only on
>> days when it isn't raining or too cold to ride, when we take the BMW.
>>
>> Errr Frank, the two most popular "long guns" used by U.S. police
>> forces are the 870 Remington shotgun and the Colt M4 Carbine.
>
> The M4 is an AR-15 derived gun. And I would guess the police are issued semi auto versions of the M4. Not the selective fire models that have three round bursts in machine gun mode. I just can't imagine city police needing machine guns. If machine guns are needed, specially equipped units would be called in. Regular police at the station would most likely have access to the semi auto only M4 versions. Not the machine guns. Even if they are police. As for the 870, its a pump action shotgun. Used for bird hunting for many decades. Very reliable. Single shot at a time. Pump reloading. 5 rounds unless there are extended tube magazines which would hold up to 7 shells. I am sure the police use the 870 for close range engagements. In non confined locations, its firepower and pellet placement is an advantage over pistols.
>
>
>
>
>> ..
>>> The AR advantages are so slight that most truly civilized countries do
>>> perfectly well with roughly zero of them in circulation. In fact, those
>>> other countries do far better.
>>>
>>> What _are_ the advantages of AR-style guns? "Dude, they're cool! And
>>> when I play with mine or shoot at those silhouette targets, I can
>>> pretend I'm a really tough commando defending my home against ... um,
>>> them other people. Even though I'm really a feeble 77 year old pot
>>> bellied guy with memory problems."
>>>
>>> "Really cool" doesn't outweigh "27 schoolkids murdered" in my book.
>> And just think! some 800+- die every year on bicycles, year after year
>> after year. Nearly 10,000 since 2007, such carnage MUST be stopped!
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.

On 2/12/2022 9:56 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 4:29:38 PM UTC-8, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 3:14:50 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>>>
>>> Add in through wounds, fragments unrecovered, and you have
>>> an 'indeterminate' area.
>>> --
>>> Andrew Muzi
>>> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>> I think there is a risk of interpreting indeterminant to mean they couldn't tell, rather than that they didn't say.
>>
>> Certainly for a suicide, if you don't have the gun available, there's a problem!
>>
>> For a homicide it would be very rare to mistake a rifle wound for a pistol wound - true there are some carbines that fire pistol rounds, are these really likely to be common murder weapons? They are not concealable or commonly carried by criminals.
>
> The city near me is having trouble with gang bangers shooting it out on the streets. Cops are shown on TV marking the
> locations of multiple shell casings on the street. Those could have come from fancy exotic handguns, but I think AR style
> rifles are much easier to get.
>
> Recently there was a kid, maybe about age 4, killed while sitting inside a home. I don't think they ever determined what
> kind of gun did that.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>

There are more semi auto pistols then AR format rifles in
USA by a wide margin. There are still notably more pistols
than long firearms in USA. But pistols are involved in the
overwhelming number of firearm crime. Pistols are easily
stolen, easily concealed and the ammo is cheaper*. Rifles
(of any type) used in crime (of any type) are a minuscule
outlier.

Some estimates declare 'more firearms than humans' in USA,
just like bicycles:
https://www.thetrace.org/newsletter/how-many-guns-do-americans-own/

And yet some 20 million+ AR-15 type rifles account for a
smallish handful of incidents per year.

*in certain social subgroups it's considered fashionable to
have a loaded chambered pistol tucked in the waistband of
one's PJ bottoms (also considered a fashion item) pointing
at one's favorite organ. Fashion sure is powerful.

And yes, things do go wrong with that, so much so it has
it's own statistical analysis:
https://heyjackass.com/2022-shot-in-the-junk-o-meter/

Trending down from last year! Woo hoo, progress!

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

On 2/12/2022 9:59 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 4:32:16 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 03:43:00 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 1:04:02 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 20:43:11 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 38 Police Special: "pew pew pew pew pew pew" and slowly
>>>>> reload.
>>>>>
>>>>> Typical AR15: "pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew
>>>>> pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew."
>>>>>
>>>>> You know, for hunting.
>>>> Well... people who never race by racing bicycles (:-) and even worse,
>>>> I've got a friend lives on a 45 ft boat and bought "mountain bike"
>>>
>>> The next time you hear of a racing bicycle being used to murder 26 children at an elementary school, let us know.
>> Good Lord! 26 is a paltry number. Timothy McVeigh got 168 without
>> firing a shot.
>>
>> (maybe we should outlaw rental trucks?)
>
> Again, please try to think in terms of benefits vs. detriments.
>
> The benefits of rental trucks are many and various.
>
> The benefits of AR--style rifles is the owner gets to feel like a tough guy when he plays with his toy.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>

Rental trucks? YGBSM!

My good friend and longtime customer is currently a Federal
witness{1} to the killing of a bunch of cycling tourists in
NYC along a bike path. He had just passed their group when
the jihadi truck driver crushed 8 of them to death,
injuring/maiming another dozen.

https://am24.mediaite.com/lc/cnt/uploads/2018/09/GettyImages-868960078-e1536589237933.jpg

{1} Crime was in 2017, so eventually the trial will end one
way or another. It's only been four and a half years, which
is not long for this sort of thing.

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

On 2/12/2022 10:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 6:18:55 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 11:29:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> Can we again consider advantages
>>> and disadvantages? I shouldn't have to point out that hands and feet
>>> have countless practical uses, and that life without them would be
>>> difficult. (The same is true of knives, BTW.)
>> So you would condone beating someone to death with hands and feet
>> because they have practical uses? And knives? O.K. I guess....
>>
>> BUT WAIT! In 1994, about 800,000 Tutsi people were slaughtered in
>> Rwanda by ethnic Hutu extremists, largely with clubs and knives. Then
>> the Largely Tutsi Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) seized power and
>> returned the favor, killing thousands of Hutu's. Again largely with
>> knives and clubs.
>
> ISTM that the problems of Tutsis vs. Hutus in 1994 are considerably different than the problem of
> gun violence in the U.S. in 2022. There probably are groups discussing Rwanda's problems. I'm not
> interested in that change of topic.
>
>>> What are the advantages and disadvantages of AR-style weaponry? Well, a
>>> disadvantage is that those guns are the weapon of choice for crackpots
>>> choosing to blow away bunches of kids in a schoolroom, a bunch of people
>>> in a night club, a bunch of people at a music concert, etc. Also, their
>>> widespread presence makes the job of a cop much more difficult, since
>>> it's easy for them to be out-gunned. (That's something almost no other
>>> developed countries have to worry about).
>> Well, one might ask, what are the advantages and disadvantages of, oh
>> say, plastic bicycles (selling for upwards of $10,000)? Or even what
>> is the advantage and disadvantage of a bicycle as it seems that
>> something less then 9% of U.S. families do not own a car and other
>> sources state that in 2019 some 267,894,860 autos were registered in
>> the U.S.
>
> I don't believe $10,000 bicycles have any significant advantage for any but the most
> elite competitive riders. But that doesn't mean their sale should be restricted. Why? Because
> there's no particular societal disadvantage. Despite this humorous song, very few people
> are murdered using bicycles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_11JDYcZX44
> (To explain: Spoons are disparaged by many players at music sessions. They are
> loud and unpleasant, and loved by people who won't take time to learn a real instrument.)
>
> And as I've documented dozens of times, the risks of bicycling are tiny, and totally dwarfed
> by the benefits.
>
>>> The AR advantages are so slight that most truly civilized countries do
>>> perfectly well with roughly zero of them in circulation. In fact, those
>>> other countries do far better.
>>>
>>> What _are_ the advantages of AR-style guns? "Dude, they're cool! And
>>> when I play with mine or shoot at those silhouette targets, I can
>>> pretend I'm a really tough commando defending my home against ... um,
>>> them other people. Even though I'm really a feeble 77 year old pot
>>> bellied guy with memory problems."
>>>
>>> "Really cool" doesn't outweigh "27 schoolkids murdered" in my book.
>
>> And just think! some 800+- die every year on bicycles, year after year
>> after year. Nearly 10,000 since 2007, such carnage MUST be stopped!
>
> John, you're having great trouble with the Benefits vs. Detriments concept.
> What are the real benefits of letting every half-wit buy a rapid fire, large magazine,
> highly portable, highly modifiable assault-style rifle? And if the advantages are
> really great, how is it that almost no developed countries other than the U.S
> allow their free purchase?
>
> Heck, do you have one where you live? If not, how are you getting by?
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>

One might easily craft a similar mental capacity limit to
the prior (First) Amendment. And one would be equally wrong
in that as well.

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

On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 9:39:30 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/12/2022 9:25 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > So you want to arm teachers with handguns?
> >
> It's an idea whose time never quite comes as there are a
> gazillion confounding factors, not the least of which is
> mass/muscle in close quarters, as you note.
>
> With a million or so K-12 teachers the rule of large numbers
> factors in with negligent discharges, simple theft,
> misplaced firearms (left on car roof as driver pulls
> away...) and the like. Each anomaly will be hailed as proof
> positive for one position or another.
>
> Another is psychological capacity. I've talked a couple
> dozen people (mostly women) out of purchasing a firearm when
> asked for advice as they were utterly incapable of using one
> /in extremis/. When push comes to shove, they'd be killed
> with their own weapon.
>
> Then again not prohibiting education industry staff from
> carrying seems sensible to me as there are among them, as in
> any group, individuals who are skilled and prepared, the
> sort of people who turn bad situations into good outcomes:
>
> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/never.jpg

One of our best friends is a recently retired middle school teacher who taught in
a rural district. Another taught in a small city's system. Both taught for IIRC 35 years
or so. Both thought the idea of arming teachers was ridiculous, with the first being
the most adamant, because her principle had actually approached her asking if she'd
be willing. As she said, it was not part of her contract, it was not something she had
been trained to do, it was nothing she was interested in doing, it was something very
unlikely to be needed, and it was something very unlikely to succeed if it did become
necessary, and there was a much larger chance that the presence of the gun would
itself generate a crisis by theft, accident, misplacement, etc.

No doubt a small percentage of teachers would feel differently. They would judge themselves
to have quick reflexes, excellent judgment, terrific marksmanship and great tactical sense.
They probably wouldn't know about quite a few simulation exercises in which "armed"
civilians ended up "killing" other innocents by mistake, including the trained first responders
who arrived to deal with the situation using their training.

Could there be exceptions? Of course it's possible. Every Normal Curve has two tails.
But the average gun owner's skill is only average. And that average doesn't come close
to matching the stuff shown on TV or in movies, let alone in first person shooter games -
no matter how much overconfidence those fantasies produce.

- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 10:17:13 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/12/2022 9:59 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 4:32:16 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
> >> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 03:43:00 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> >> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 1:04:02 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 20:43:11 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 38 Police Special: "pew pew pew pew pew pew" and slowly
> >>>>> reload.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Typical AR15: "pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew
> >>>>> pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You know, for hunting.
> >>>> Well... people who never race by racing bicycles (:-) and even worse,
> >>>> I've got a friend lives on a 45 ft boat and bought "mountain bike"
> >>>
> >>> The next time you hear of a racing bicycle being used to murder 26 children at an elementary school, let us know.
> >> Good Lord! 26 is a paltry number. Timothy McVeigh got 168 without
> >> firing a shot.
> >>
> >> (maybe we should outlaw rental trucks?)
> >
> > Again, please try to think in terms of benefits vs. detriments.
> >
> > The benefits of rental trucks are many and various.
> >
> > The benefits of AR--style rifles is the owner gets to feel like a tough guy when he plays with his toy.
> >
> > - Frank Krygowski
> >
> Rental trucks? YGBSM!
>
> My good friend and longtime customer is currently a Federal
> witness{1} to the killing of a bunch of cycling tourists in
> NYC along a bike path. He had just passed their group when
> the jihadi truck driver crushed 8 of them to death,
> injuring/maiming another dozen.

Wait - are you saying the detriments of rental trucks greatly outweigh their benefits?
Or are you saying you want to ban rental trucks??

It's sensible to look at benefits vs. detriments in total. A single incident doesn't move that
needle much.

- Frank Krygowski

On 2/12/2022 10:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 6:30:46 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>>
>> But Frank, the rate of auto deaths in the U.S. is 12.4/100,000 and
>> deaths by firearm is 12.21. Shouldn't we "go for the gold" and solve
>> the car problem first and when we solve that problem then move on to
>> guns?
>
> Advantages vs. disadvantages, John. I can list lots of advantages for
> cars. What are the advantages of an AR rifle for an ordinary citizen?
>
> (Do you own a car? Do you own an AR?)
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>

Yes. Several cars and bicycles, one AR-15.
List advantages? Sure.

They're inexpensive, lightweight, accurate, very simple/fast
to clean/strip, parts are very available and affordable for
maintenance/upgrade compared to any other rifle. Which is
why there are well over 20,000,000 of them here. People like
them and are willing to pay for them.

One may as well harangue about Shimano STi systems- they
work, they're cheap and people like them.

Oh, and more MV (~43,000) than firearm deaths (~13000, about
1/2 suicides) again in 2021. Want to make our world better?
Go after hospital-acquired infection deaths, now about
70,000 per year. Despite much money time and attention that
number goes up every year.

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

On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 10:08:00 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>
> There are more semi auto pistols then AR format rifles in
> USA by a wide margin. There are still notably more pistols
> than long firearms in USA. But pistols are involved in the
> overwhelming number of firearm crime. Pistols are easily
> stolen, easily concealed and the ammo is cheaper*. Rifles
> (of any type) used in crime (of any type) are a minuscule
> outlier.
>
> Some estimates declare 'more firearms than humans' in USA...

Which is a ludicrous situation. But your condemnation of handguns is
noteworthy.

- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 10:36:03 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/12/2022 10:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >
> > Advantages vs. disadvantages, John. I can list lots of advantages for
> > cars. What are the advantages of an AR rifle for an ordinary citizen?
>
> List advantages? Sure.
>
> They're inexpensive, lightweight, accurate, very simple/fast
> to clean/strip, parts are very available and affordable for
> maintenance/upgrade compared to any other rifle.

Details! 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?

- Frank Krygowski

On 2/12/2022 11:12 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:43:52 -0800 (PST), Tim R
> <timothy42bach@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 caliber 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.
>
> The Philippine thing was from about 1899 to 1913, including the Moro
> Rebellion. The Krag was issued, at least in limited quantities - I've
> read 30,000 - during the Spanish-American War, in 1898. I would have
> thought that they would have been available in the Philippines within
> a reasonable time after August 1898,
>
> Supposedly the 1911 Colt .45 was made the "service pistol" to stop
> charging Moro's although I suspect that in fact the U.S had been
> looking at "automatic" to replace the revolver before the 1911.
>
>>
>> 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.)
>
> A couple of comments. Recoil of a 9 pound, black powder, weapon is
> really not severe. The Garand weighed about that weight and I shot on
> the Base Rifle team for a bit and had no problems with "rapid fire"
> with standard issue ammunition. The .577/450 had a muzzle energy of
> about 1,940 ft·lb and the 30-06, 180 gr., about 2,913 ft·lbf
>
> Re the M-16 type. Yes the Infantry "basic load" was about 7 x 30
> rounds = 210 rounds for the M16 and only 80 for the Garand. But on the
> other hand the firing rate for the M16 was ~700 RPM and 40 - 50 RPM
> for the Garand. Sustained fire, disregarding reloading time was about
> 20 seconds for the M16 and 96 seconds for the Garand (:-)
>
> And troops did run out of ammunition. At least one unit of Aussies ran
> out of ammo during the Battle of Long Tan and without U.S. helicopter
> support would have been overrun.
>
> As an aside, I got to know a number of Special Forces troops while at
> Nha Trang - I used to eat in their Mess - and I was told that they
> could "carry any gun they wanted to" and surprisingly a number seemed
> to refer AK-47's.
>

Right. M1911 was developed/approved as we were ending
Philippine operations although. Yes, the impetus for it was
Moro jihadis.

I only know this because of George S Patton. It seems that
he had filed the hammer notch of his new issue M1911 so much
that he suffered a graze wound from unintended discharge.
(d'oh!).

After the incident he preferred the Browning designed 1908
Colt .380 'Hammerless'
http://www.pattonhq.com/pistols/colt380l.gif
Which was popular in civilian sales but not with the War
Department. Patton also carried Colt 1873 single action
revolvers in .45LC; a man of eclectic tastes.

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

On 2/12/2022 11:33 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 11:12:18 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:43:52 -0800 (PST), Tim R
>> <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 caliber 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.
>> The Philippine thing was from about 1899 to 1913, including the Moro
>> Rebellion. The Krag was issued, at least in limited quantities - I've
>> read 30,000 - during the Spanish-American War, in 1898. I would have
>> thought that they would have been available in the Philippines within
>> a reasonable time after August 1898,
>>
>> Supposedly the 1911 Colt .45 was made the "service pistol" to stop
>> charging Moro's although I suspect that in fact the U.S had been
>> looking at "automatic" to replace the revolver before the 1911.
>>>
>>> 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.)
>> A couple of comments. Recoil of a 9 pound, black powder, weapon is
>> really not severe. The Garand weighed about that weight and I shot on
>> the Base Rifle team for a bit and had no problems with "rapid fire"
>> with standard issue ammunition. The .577/450 had a muzzle energy of
>> about 1,940 ft·lb and the 30-06, 180 gr., about 2,913 ft·lbf
>>
>> Re the M-16 type. Yes the Infantry "basic load" was about 7 x 30
>> rounds = 210 rounds for the M16 and only 80 for the Garand. But on the
>> other hand the firing rate for the M16 was ~700 RPM and 40 - 50 RPM
>> for the Garand. Sustained fire, disregarding reloading time was about
>> 20 seconds for the M16 and 96 seconds for the Garand (:-)
>>
>> And troops did run out of ammunition. At least one unit of Aussies ran
>> out of ammo during the Battle of Long Tan and without U.S. helicopter
>> support would have been overrun.
>>
>> As an aside, I got to know a number of Special Forces troops while at
>> Nha Trang - I used to eat in their Mess - and I was told that they
>> could "carry any gun they wanted to" and surprisingly a number seemed
>> to refer AK-47's.
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
> I don't know when you were in Vietnam, but in the early years of Vietnam, or the first few years of the M16 being issued, it was not the most reliable weapon. It tended to jam in the jungle, mud, swamp of Vietnam. But later versions were modified and cleaning kits were issued for the rifles and they became more reliable. I have read the AK47 was a very reliable gun that never needed cleaning and just worked forever. It was, is, cheap and simple. Perfect for the Russian army and perfect for all the third world countries using the AK47 today. Rifle hygiene is not a prerogative in many of these places.
>

There's a scathing US Army report, a voluminous
Congressional investigation report and a ton of popular
books on that fiasco. The original was fine and reliable,
with the specified rounds. Later (ISTR 1966?) Increased
demand was filled partly by ammunition contracts to Olin who
used a new higher energy propellant which resulted in fatal
cartridge expansion ('jamming') with disastrous result in
field. After first reports, Army and Marine staff assumed
negligent maintenance and issued cleaning kits along with
ramrods to clear the chamber. Marines in particular were
found to be very diligent about cleaning with no change in
failure rates. Eventually the clearances and head space were
modified slightly, production changed to full chrome lined
barrels and ammunition propellant was standardized, all of
which did in fact solve the problem a year or so later.

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