On 2/13/2022 2:09 AM, John B. wrote:
> 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 (:-)
> !
>

Right you are.

One of our customers is an Unexploded Ordinance Disposal
expert (and well recompensed, I might add. Which is great
for us!). Right now he's on his way to the Marshall Islands
where it seems the Army Air Corps and SeaBees were in
something of a hurry in 1944 to build a tower and landing
strips- on top of several unexploded bombs, recently
discovered with ground radar.

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

On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 2:10:43 p.m. UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/12/2022 11:33 PM, russell...@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

Plus they added a forward assist on the right rear of the receiver so that you could jam a cartridge into the chamber and really jam the rifle.

Cheers

On 2/13/2022 12:25 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> 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
>

That's all very reasonable I can't quibble with any of it.

When everything goes wrong, I'd rather live/work near the
guy in the Letters column than your friend the teacher.

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

On 2/13/2022 12:32 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> 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
>

There are roughly as many fatalities per rental truck as per
AR-15 rifle. Both are anomalous outliers, not trends.

Stolen 9mm semi pistols are a very large problem. AR-15 just
aren't, out here in Not-TeeVee-Land

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

On 2/13/2022 12:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> 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
>

Condemn? The actual numbers are well reported and have been
forever. It's not an opinion.

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

On 2/13/2022 12:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> 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
>

Sorry, you and I and others have beaten that misnomer to
death. After I noted that not one of 192 countries issues
AR-15 to their armed forces, someone ( maybe Mr Slocumb?)
found a Singapore elite target competition team with a few.
OK, point made.

No one here mocks your 'wannabe racer bike' Cannondale
because it has road handlebars. A rough similarity among the
uninformed doesn't make your bicycle ready for competition
any more than it makes an AR-15 a 'combat weapon'.

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

On 2/13/2022 2:29 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/13/2022 12:25 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> 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
>>
>
> That's all very reasonable I can't quibble with any of it.
>
> When everything goes wrong, I'd rather live/work near the guy in the
> Letters column than your friend the teacher.

In my 70-something years, "everything" has never gone wrong that way.
There's so much unjustified fear out there!

When those things have gone wrong for others, people like my friend have
never been the cause. People like your guy in the letters column have
been.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/13/2022 2:39 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/13/2022 12:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> 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
>>
>
> Sorry, you and I and others have beaten that misnomer to death. After I
> noted that not one of 192 countries issues AR-15 to their armed forces,
> someone ( maybe Mr Slocumb?) found a Singapore elite target competition
> team with a few. OK, point made.
>
> No one here mocks your 'wannabe racer bike' Cannondale because it has
> road handlebars. A rough similarity among the uninformed doesn't make
> your bicycle ready for competition any more than it makes an AR-15 a
> 'combat weapon'.

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.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 03:42:31 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 7:32:16 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 03:43:00 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>>>
>> >
>> >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?)
>
>Compare the intended purpose of a box truck (or even fertilizer or diesel fuel) against the intended purpose of an AR-15 and see if anything jumps out at you.
>(Note: This is why even though you could murder someone with a pencil, there are no laws against pencils)
>
>" Magazines available up to 30 rounds for visiting people like Flunky and all of his close friends at the gay bath houses." - Tom Kunich

Well, if one wants to say "intended Purpose" then one has to be rather
more specific as while certainly just as the new flying machines
firearms have always been used first by the military. But it is
equally true that millions today are not used by the military.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 10:57:51 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>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?

No you stated that " 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"

And while you have cleverly? removed the proceeding text your comment
was in rebuttal to my pointing out that more hands and feet were used
in killing then rifles and shotguns - "long guns"

So what were expounding if not justifying the use of hands and feet as
murder "weapons".
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 08:41:26 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>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?

But are you? You live in a $50,000 house, in a slum, you have written
that you are afraid to open the front door until you peep out the
bedroom window, you ride second hand bicycles. Where is this 40 times?
Well except, of course, in your imagination.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 10:40:17 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>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

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/19/there-are-more-guns-than-people-in-the-united-states-according-to-a-new-study-of-global-firearm-ownership/

No comment required.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 11:19:22 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
<i_am_cycle_pathic@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 2:10:43 p.m. UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 2/12/2022 11:33 PM, russell...@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
>
>Plus they added a forward assist on the right rear of the receiver so that you could jam a cartridge into the chamber and really jam the rifle.
>
>Cheers

Actually, and I have fired both versions, the gun worked perfectly
well if you pulled the breach block back all the way and then let go
but if you slowed the closing by even a bit, usually by not completely
releasing in the full open position the bolt would quite often not go
fully into battery and thus wouldn't fire. The first issue to the Air
Force were famous for that and when qualifying with the new weapon the
firing range people would be chanting like a mantra. Pull it all the
way back and let it go! Don't ride the bolt closed!
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 2/13/2022 4:48 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 03:42:31 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 7:32:16 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 03:43:00 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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?)
>>
>> Compare the intended purpose of a box truck (or even fertilizer or diesel fuel) against the intended purpose of an AR-15 and see if anything jumps out at you.
>> (Note: This is why even though you could murder someone with a pencil, there are no laws against pencils)
>>
>> " Magazines available up to 30 rounds for visiting people like Flunky and all of his close friends at the gay bath houses." - Tom Kunich
>
> Well, if one wants to say "intended Purpose" then one has to be rather
> more specific as while certainly just as the new flying machines
> firearms have always been used first by the military. But it is
> equally true that millions today are not used by the military.
>

Intended purpose:
https://onlinebicyclemuseum.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/1902-BSA-Boer-War-25.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ad/46/3a/ad463a4ab712319dcd9306acdfc4641c.jpg

p.s. no one invades Switzerland:
https://c8.alamy.com/comp/GHK224/swiss-armed-forces-infantry-bicycle-regiment-exercises-GHK224.jpg

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

On 2/13/2022 5:24 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 11:19:22 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
> <i_am_cycle_pathic@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 2:10:43 p.m. UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 2/12/2022 11:33 PM, russell...@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
>>
>> Plus they added a forward assist on the right rear of the receiver so that you could jam a cartridge into the chamber and really jam the rifle.
>>
>> Cheers
>
> Actually, and I have fired both versions, the gun worked perfectly
> well if you pulled the breach block back all the way and then let go
> but if you slowed the closing by even a bit, usually by not completely
> releasing in the full open position the bolt would quite often not go
> fully into battery and thus wouldn't fire. The first issue to the Air
> Force were famous for that and when qualifying with the new weapon the
> firing range people would be chanting like a mantra. Pull it all the
> way back and let it go! Don't ride the bolt closed!
>

Another parallel to integrated shifters. 'Smack it and let
go' gives a crisp shift. Trying to baby that little lever
makes a lot of noise.

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

On 2/13/2022 6:46 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> p.s. no one invades Switzerland:
> https://c8.alamy.com/comp/GHK224/swiss-armed-forces-infantry-bicycle-regiment-exercises-GHK224.jpg

That's their "well regulated militia." And hey, it's actually well
regulated!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 13:39:39 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 2/13/2022 12:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> 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
>>
>
>Sorry, you and I and others have beaten that misnomer to
>death. After I noted that not one of 192 countries issues
>AR-15 to their armed forces, someone ( maybe Mr Slocumb?)
>found a Singapore elite target competition team with a few.
>OK, point made.
>
>No one here mocks your 'wannabe racer bike' Cannondale
>because it has road handlebars. A rough similarity among the
>uninformed doesn't make your bicycle ready for competition
>any more than it makes an AR-15 a 'combat weapon'.

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.

Perhaps the logical thing would be for those who do not agree with the
laws of the U.S. would be to simply move across the border to Canada
(:-)

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 2/13/2022 6:33 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 13:39:39 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 2/13/2022 12:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, you and I and others have beaten that misnomer to
>> death. After I noted that not one of 192 countries issues
>> AR-15 to their armed forces, someone ( maybe Mr Slocumb?)
>> found a Singapore elite target competition team with a few.
>> OK, point made.
>>
>> No one here mocks your 'wannabe racer bike' Cannondale
>> because it has road handlebars. A rough similarity among the
>> uninformed doesn't make your bicycle ready for competition
>> any more than it makes an AR-15 a 'combat weapon'.
>
> 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.
>
> Perhaps the logical thing would be for those who do not agree with the
> laws of the U.S. would be to simply move across the border to Canada
> (:-)
>

And under the 1968 firearms act, wiser heads realized that
if the government knew where each firearm is and who owns
it, that right becomes meaningless.

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

On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 11:24:34 AM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/12/2022 8:31 PM, russell...@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

Very believable motor vehicle accidents kill many in the active military.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year
Wikipedia page showing in 2020 the death rate for vehicle crashes was 11.67 per 100,000. 38,680 total deaths in 2020 from motor vehicles.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
In 2020 the death rate was 1027.0 deaths per 100,000 population. 3,383,729 total deaths in 2020.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db427.pdf
If you scroll down a little ways to Table 4 in the link above you see the top ten reasons for death in the USA for 2020. Below are the causes and deaths per 100,000 in the number following the words for the disease.
Heart disease 168.2
Cancer 144.1
Covid-19 85.0
Unintentional injuries 57.6
Stroke 38.8
Chronic lower respiratory disease 36.4
Alzheimer 32.4
Diabetes 24.8
Influenza Pneumonia 13.0
Kidney disease 12.7

And as I mentioned above, motor vehicle crashes was 11.67. So not even in the top ten for killing people in the USA in 2020.

And when you look at the top ten reason for deaths in the USA, you quickly realize that most of the causes of death are mainly for old people. For instance, heart disease, cancer, stroke, chronic respiratory, Alzheimer, Type 2 diabetes, are all diseases that mainly affect the aged. Not the young. The military is mainly young to middle aged people. The only old ones are a few top rank officers. Once you reach old age in the military, they kick you out. Therefore, motor vehicles crashes would be a main killer in the military since almost all of the other prevalent killers for people in the USA do not apply to the military population age.

And just for the fun of it, everyone should notice that murders by black gangs and drug dealers is not in the top ten. Murder by guns is not there. Death by suicide is not even there. I thought death by suicide would be more prevalent, but I guess not. The vast vast majority of people in the USA die from lifestyle choices throughout their life that ultimately catches up to them in old age. Please keep in mind that I am aware heart attacks can occasionally kill young people. And a woman can develop uterus cancer for no reason at all other than bad luck. But in general, you kind of reap what you sow for the majority of people.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:04:06 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2/13/2022 2:39 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 2/13/2022 12:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, you and I and others have beaten that misnomer to death. After I
>> noted that not one of 192 countries issues AR-15 to their armed forces,
>> someone ( maybe Mr Slocumb?) found a Singapore elite target competition
>> team with a few. OK, point made.
>>
>> No one here mocks your 'wannabe racer bike' Cannondale because it has
>> road handlebars. A rough similarity among the uninformed doesn't make
>> your bicycle ready for competition any more than it makes an AR-15 a
>> 'combat weapon'.
>
>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 and your
argument that the pistol grip is intended to keep control while
running... well so called "pistol grips" and "thumb hole stocks" that
emulate the pistol grip have been in use for, certainly, more then 60
years to my personal knowledge.
http://www.rifle-stocks.com/straightlinethumbhole.htm
And secondly, if you ever did any target shooting with large bore
rifles you would know that particularly in the prone position the
pistol grip results in a far more stable position then a conventional
rifle stock. Been there, done that.

And your argument that it is designed for combat use... well, the
first (I believe) known "firearm" seems to date back to the 10th
century in China... a war weapon. The so called "bolt action" rifle
descended from the Berdan Patent bolt action rifle originally made for
the Russian Army, I believe.

Oh yes, the first airplane sold by the Wright Bros. was sold to the
U.S. Army, for use in warfare.

And, for that matter, the English Long Bow was designed as a weapon to
kill large animals, including men, as the English did so efficiently
in at least two major battles.

For that matter bicycles have been used in support of warfare. See the
Japanese advance through Malaya.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 3:04:10 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/13/2022 2:39 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 2/13/2022 12:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> 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
> >>
> >
> > Sorry, you and I and others have beaten that misnomer to death. After I
> > noted that not one of 192 countries issues AR-15 to their armed forces,
> > someone ( maybe Mr Slocumb?) found a Singapore elite target competition
> > team with a few. OK, point made.
> >
> > No one here mocks your 'wannabe racer bike' Cannondale because it has
> > road handlebars. A rough similarity among the uninformed doesn't make
> > your bicycle ready for competition any more than it makes an AR-15 a
> > 'combat weapon'.
> 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.
>
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

I assume, maybe incorrectly, that the name AR-15 is a standard, generic name for semi auto military looking rifles. Below is a link for Eugene Stoner, the man who invented it or its internal operating mechanism back in the mid 1950s. When I say invented it, I mean he is the one credited with its development. More or less. I'm sure many other names were involved too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Stoner
"Eugene Morrison Stoner (November 22, 1922 – April 24, 1997) was an American firearms designer who is most associated with the development of the ArmaLite AR-15 rifle that was redesigned and modified by Colt's Patent Firearm Company (now known as Colt's Manufacturing Company, LLC) for the US military as the M16 rifle."

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 17:46:03 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 2/13/2022 4:48 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 03:42:31 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 7:32:16 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 03:43:00 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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?)
>>>
>>> Compare the intended purpose of a box truck (or even fertilizer or diesel fuel) against the intended purpose of an AR-15 and see if anything jumps out at you.
>>> (Note: This is why even though you could murder someone with a pencil, there are no laws against pencils)
>>>
>>> " Magazines available up to 30 rounds for visiting people like Flunky and all of his close friends at the gay bath houses." - Tom Kunich
>>
>> Well, if one wants to say "intended Purpose" then one has to be rather
>> more specific as while certainly just as the new flying machines
>> firearms have always been used first by the military. But it is
>> equally true that millions today are not used by the military.
>>
>
>Intended purpose:
>https://onlinebicyclemuseum.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/1902-BSA-Boer-War-25.jpg
>
>https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ad/46/3a/ad463a4ab712319dcd9306acdfc4641c.jpg
>
>p.s. no one invades Switzerland:
>https://c8.alamy.com/comp/GHK224/swiss-armed-forces-infantry-bicycle-regiment-exercises-GHK224.jpg

I don't see how Thayer can win.... steel frame single speed bicycles?
(:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 7:49:22 p.m. UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/13/2022 6:33 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 13:39:39 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/13/2022 12:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> 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
> >>>
> >>
> >> Sorry, you and I and others have beaten that misnomer to
> >> death. After I noted that not one of 192 countries issues
> >> AR-15 to their armed forces, someone ( maybe Mr Slocumb?)
> >> found a Singapore elite target competition team with a few.
> >> OK, point made.
> >>
> >> No one here mocks your 'wannabe racer bike' Cannondale
> >> because it has road handlebars. A rough similarity among the
> >> uninformed doesn't make your bicycle ready for competition
> >> any more than it makes an AR-15 a 'combat weapon'.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Perhaps the logical thing would be for those who do not agree with the
> > laws of the U.S. would be to simply move across the border to Canada
> > (:-)
> >
> And under the 1968 firearms act, wiser heads realized that
> if the government knew where each firearm is and who owns
> it, that right becomes meaningless.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Like in High River Canada when it flooded and the RCMP went into homes and removed firearms. Gee I wonder how they knew which homes contained a firearm? The gun registry perhaps?

Cheers

John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 13:39:39 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 2/13/2022 12:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, you and I and others have beaten that misnomer to
>> death. After I noted that not one of 192 countries issues
>> AR-15 to their armed forces, someone ( maybe Mr Slocumb?)
>> found a Singapore elite target competition team with a few.
>> OK, point made.
>>
>> No one here mocks your 'wannabe racer bike' Cannondale
>> because it has road handlebars. A rough similarity among the
>> uninformed doesn't make your bicycle ready for competition
>> any more than it makes an AR-15 a 'combat weapon'.
>
> 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.
>
> Perhaps the logical thing would be for those who do not agree with the
> laws of the U.S. would be to simply move across the border to Canada
> (:-)
>

Thanks, but no thanks. You’re a bad enough influence as it is.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 18:49:18 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 2/13/2022 6:33 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 13:39:39 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/13/2022 12:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, you and I and others have beaten that misnomer to
>>> death. After I noted that not one of 192 countries issues
>>> AR-15 to their armed forces, someone ( maybe Mr Slocumb?)
>>> found a Singapore elite target competition team with a few.
>>> OK, point made.
>>>
>>> No one here mocks your 'wannabe racer bike' Cannondale
>>> because it has road handlebars. A rough similarity among the
>>> uninformed doesn't make your bicycle ready for competition
>>> any more than it makes an AR-15 a 'combat weapon'.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Perhaps the logical thing would be for those who do not agree with the
>> laws of the U.S. would be to simply move across the border to Canada
>> (:-)
>>
>
>And under the 1968 firearms act, wiser heads realized that
>if the government knew where each firearm is and who owns
>it, that right becomes meaningless.

Well... in colonial days they knew where the firearms were as many,
maybe most, colonies had a law that all citizens over the age of
whatever - MUST possess both a firelock and a specified amount of
ammunitions or else be fined. In Virginia the law stated

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

and in Massachusetts
required officers twice yearly
“veiwe all ye armes & ammunition of ye band, to see if they be all
according to lawe…

--
Cheers,

John B.