On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:50:01 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>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.

The CDC lists
All Homicides - Deaths per 100,000 population: 7.5
and
Firearm homicides - Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.9
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

and the FBI reports do list homicides by race of both victim and
offender

Victim -
White 3,299
Race of offender White 2,594 Black 566

Black 2,906
Race of offender White 246 Black 2,574
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls
The chart states:
"NOTE: This table is based on incidents where some information about
the offender is known by law enforcement; therefore, when the offender
age, sex, race, and ethnicity are all reported as unknown, these data
are excluded from the table.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 17:03:23 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 12:08:00 PM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
>> 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
>
>I believe the AR-15 style weapon is knocked in gun discussions because it seems to be the most prevalent type of gun used in MASS killings. Not all of course.
>
>List of the most dead mass killings in the USA. Semi-auto rifles is a popular weapon of choice. Along with semi-auto pistols too. And revolvers and shotguns are listed in a few too. But no single shot rifles. No lever action rifles either. I would have thought some cowboy action crazy killer would have committed a mass murder with his Winchester lever rifle and Colt single action pistol. But no.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

I'm guessing here but Semi automatic rifles made up 70 percent of
firearm production in recent years and there are estimated to be about
20 million sold. So, logically, they probably are used in many
shootings. About 14 out of 25 on the site you referenced.

But, back in the day, say the 1966 Texas Tower shooting, the Shooter
killed 14 and wounded 31 using an M-1 carbine, a Remington 700
hunting rifle, a sawed-off shotgun, several pistols, a machete, and
knives.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 8:11:06 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:50:01 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >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.
> The CDC lists
> All Homicides - Deaths per 100,000 population: 7.5
> and
> Firearm homicides - Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.9
> https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

So of the homicides/murders in the USA, 78.67% are committed by guns. (5.9 / 7.5 = 78.67%) All kinds of guns, pistols, rifles, shotguns. Only 21.33% of all murders in the USA are committed by punching, kicking, strangling, knives, clubs, rocks, bow and arrow, ninja stars, spears, etc. I'm guessing guns account for 78.67% of the murders in the USA because its real easy to kill folks with a gun. Much easier than Indian style with a bow and arrow. Or Knight style with a sword.

>
> and the FBI reports do list homicides by race of both victim and
> offender
>
> Victim -
> White 3,299
> Race of offender White 2,594 Black 566
>
> Black 2,906
> Race of offender White 246 Black 2,574
> https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls
> The chart states:
> "NOTE: This table is based on incidents where some information about
> the offender is known by law enforcement; therefore, when the offender
> age, sex, race, and ethnicity are all reported as unknown, these data
> are excluded from the table.
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 20:07:14 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 8:29:58 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 17:03:23 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 12:08:00 PM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
>> >> 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
>> >
>> >I believe the AR-15 style weapon is knocked in gun discussions because it seems to be the most prevalent type of gun used in MASS killings. Not all of course.
>> >
>> >List of the most dead mass killings in the USA. Semi-auto rifles is a popular weapon of choice. Along with semi-auto pistols too. And revolvers and shotguns are listed in a few too. But no single shot rifles. No lever action rifles either. I would have thought some cowboy action crazy killer would have committed a mass murder with his Winchester lever rifle and Colt single action pistol. But no.
>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
>
>> I'm guessing here but Semi automatic rifles made up 70 percent of
>> firearm production in recent years and there are estimated to be about
>> 20 million sold. So, logically, they probably are used in many
>> shootings. About 14 out of 25 on the site you referenced.
>
>NO. Firearm production includes rifles, shotguns, and pistols. NO WAY on earth that semi auto rifles are 70% of the total. Now amongst rifles only, it is possible that semi auto rifles, and maybe even AR-15 style rifles in particular, make up 70% of the total for rifles. A Browning BAR is a semi auto rifle but it is not an AR-15 style rifle. Actually I doubt even AR-15 style rifles make up 70% of the total rifle sales. .22 rifles such as the Remington 552 is semi auto. But there are a lot of shotguns sold in the US too. Semi-auto, pump, and over-under. And almost certainly MORE pistols sold than rifles and shotguns combined. Someone else will have to look up the totals for all firearms of all kinds sold each year in the USA. Semi auto rifles are not 70% of the total sales.
>
You are correct and I'm wondering where I found the 70% number
although the 20 million seems to be the current figure.

I just did a bit more digging and I did find one article that stated
that "2018 saw 11.4 million firearms produced or imported into the
U.S.; nearly one-half, 48 percent, comprised of modern sporting
rifles". Note: MSR seems to be an acronym for AR type rifles.
https://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2020/11/20-million-modern-sporting-rifles/

>https://www.browning.com/products/firearms/rifles/bar.html
>Note this Browning BAR is not the BAR used in WW1 and WW2 that was a machine gun.
>
>
>>
>> But, back in the day, say the 1966 Texas Tower shooting, the Shooter
>> killed 14 and wounded 31 using an M-1 carbine, a Remington 700
>> hunting rifle, a sawed-off shotgun, several pistols, a machete, and
>> knives.
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 6:55:05 PM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 4:43:54 PM UTC-8, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 7:24:12 PM UTC-5, Tim R wrote:
> >
> > Some discussion earlier about the military mindset and tradition.
> >
> > I read a fascinating book about the evolution of the military long arm over time, and there was violent disagreement from the earliest days over the choice of calibre which continues to this day. The title escapes me.
> >
> > The original musket was in .69 caliber. By the Civil War this had shrunk to .58, over the bitter resistance of what they called gravel bellies. Soldiers could carry more ammo, so they British sshot more ammo, so somebody had to pay for, procure, and deliver more ammo.
> >
> > .45 caliber owned the late 1800s, with the .30 appearing near the end. The Phillippine conflict still had mostly trapdoor springfields in .45 but I the .30 Krag was used. Every reduction was fought ferociously by the oldtimers.
> >
> > There were extensive tests of lethality (sheep I think), range, and accuracy at Aberdeen Proving ground, and out to about 1000 yards the .276 did as well as the larger calibers.
> >
> > In Vietnam we went to .223, which I think is the sweet spot - smaller loses range and penetration, larger loses ability to carry enough ammo and recoil hurts accuracy for most soldiers. (I recently rewatched Zulu. Those rifles were Martini-Henrys in .577/.450, meaning they were a .577 cartridge case necked down to fire a .450 caliber 480 grain bullet. Recoil had to be extreme with that loading, and the average soldier probably weighed about 140.)
> Recoil isn't very important. Women skeet shooter use 12 gauge full loads without having any problems shooting entire matches with guns that recoil a great deal more than the M1A. I couldn't even feel the recoil of the M1 carbine which shoots a 30 caliber round.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErN5UNx5XqM
Above is a video of a girl shooting an M1 Garand. Video is only 58 seconds in length. She is sitting at a table and the rifle is on a rest. For some reason her chair has wheels. But everytime she fires a 30-06 shell, her shoulder flies backwards 6 inches and her head snaps back off of the buttstock. A 30-06 rifle cartridge is not a light recoil weapon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Kig2kaHZEg
This video is of a man firing the M1 Garand in 30-06. He handles the recoil better. He is standing. But it still kicks and recoils. It is not a light recoil weapon. Video is 2:14 in length and the M1 starts at about 25 second mark.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 23:15:08 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

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

Well, I've shot the M1 in a number of rifle matches you (or I) are
concentrating on the sights and the target and it is more a matter of
getting back on target. The same in 12 gauge trap shooting. The bird
flies and you are concentrating on swinging the gun and leading and
honestly you hardly notice the recoil.

Prone with the M1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc6pKWqJ1QE
Standing with the M1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xg1n3G43Q0
Girl shooting Trap
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2mW6wE_R78
--
Cheers,

John B.

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

In tommy's defense, I would imagine he couldn't feel the recoil wen all the ever gave him to shoot are blanks

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

In tommy's defense, I would imagine he couldn't feel the recoil when all they ever gave him to shoot are blanks
"Magazines available up to 30 rounds for visiting gay bath houses" - Tom Kunich

On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 9:26:52 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/12/2022 8:56 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 6:43:54 PM UTC-6, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 7:24:12 PM UTC-5, Tim R wrote:
> >>
> >> Some discussion earlier about the military mindset and tradition.
> >>
> >> I read a fascinating book about the evolution of the military long arm over time, and there was violent disagreement from the earliest days over the choice of calibre which continues to this day. The title escapes me.
> >>
> >> The original musket was in .69 caliber. By the Civil War this had shrunk to .58, over the bitter resistance of what they called gravel bellies. Soldiers could carry more ammo, so they British sshot more ammo, so somebody had to pay for, procure, and deliver more ammo.
> >>
> >> .45 caliber owned the late 1800s, with the .30 appearing near the end. The Phillippine conflict still had mostly trapdoor springfields in .45 but I the .30 Krag was used. Every reduction was fought ferociously by the oldtimers.
> >>
> >> There were extensive tests of lethality (sheep I think), range, and accuracy at Aberdeen Proving ground, and out to about 1000 yards the .276 did as well as the larger calibers.
> >>
> >> In Vietnam we went to .223, which I think is the sweet spot - smaller loses range and penetration, larger loses ability to carry enough ammo and recoil hurts accuracy for most soldiers. (I recently rewatched Zulu. Those rifles were Martini-Henrys in .577/.450, meaning they were a .577 cartridge case necked down to fire a .450 caliber 480 grain bullet. Recoil had to be extreme with that loading, and the average soldier probably weighed about 140.)
> >
> > Your description of caliber size decreasing over the centuries leaves out one pretty important fact. Gun powder changed from black powder to smokeless to whatever high tech propellant we are using today. Back with your original British Brown Bess .69 cartridge/.75 caliber, it was propelled with relatively weak black powder. By the time the 1898 Cuba war came along with Teddy leading the Rough Riders up the hill they were using smokeless powder in their .30-40 Krag rifles. And then I am guessing there were more advancements in gun powder leading up to Vietnam and the use of 5.56 NATO (.223).. So with the smaller and skinnier bullets using more explosive propellant, the killing force, energy foot pounds of force delivered to the target, was the same or even more.
> >
>
> +1

Andrew, there has been almost no advancement in the composition of smokeless powders for over 100 years. The base of it is nitrocellulose and using anything with a faster burn would explode shells in their chambers. The only reason that the .223 caliber was used was that advancement of bullet design gave the striking power to that caliber to that of larger bullets with the advantage of being the able to carry additional ammunition without being excessively hindered by the weight.

On 2/14/2022 9:48 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 9:26:52 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 2/12/2022 8:56 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 6:43:54 PM UTC-6, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 7:24:12 PM UTC-5, Tim R wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Some discussion earlier about the military mindset and tradition.
>>>>
>>>> I read a fascinating book about the evolution of the military long arm over time, and there was violent disagreement from the earliest days over the choice of calibre which continues to this day. The title escapes me.
>>>>
>>>> The original musket was in .69 caliber. By the Civil War this had shrunk to .58, over the bitter resistance of what they called gravel bellies. Soldiers could carry more ammo, so they British sshot more ammo, so somebody had to pay for, procure, and deliver more ammo.
>>>>
>>>> .45 caliber owned the late 1800s, with the .30 appearing near the end. The Phillippine conflict still had mostly trapdoor springfields in .45 but I the .30 Krag was used. Every reduction was fought ferociously by the oldtimers.
>>>>
>>>> There were extensive tests of lethality (sheep I think), range, and accuracy at Aberdeen Proving ground, and out to about 1000 yards the .276 did as well as the larger calibers.
>>>>
>>>> In Vietnam we went to .223, which I think is the sweet spot - smaller loses range and penetration, larger loses ability to carry enough ammo and recoil hurts accuracy for most soldiers. (I recently rewatched Zulu. Those rifles were Martini-Henrys in .577/.450, meaning they were a .577 cartridge case necked down to fire a .450 caliber 480 grain bullet. Recoil had to be extreme with that loading, and the average soldier probably weighed about 140.)
>>>
>>> Your description of caliber size decreasing over the centuries leaves out one pretty important fact. Gun powder changed from black powder to smokeless to whatever high tech propellant we are using today. Back with your original British Brown Bess .69 cartridge/.75 caliber, it was propelled with relatively weak black powder. By the time the 1898 Cuba war came along with Teddy leading the Rough Riders up the hill they were using smokeless powder in their .30-40 Krag rifles. And then I am guessing there were more advancements in gun powder leading up to Vietnam and the use of 5.56 NATO (.223). So with the smaller and skinnier bullets using more explosive propellant, the killing force, energy foot pounds of force delivered to the target, was the same or even more.
>>>
>>
>> +1
>
> Andrew, there has been almost no advancement in the composition of smokeless powders for over 100 years. The base of it is nitrocellulose and using anything with a faster burn would explode shells in their chambers. The only reason that the .223 caliber was used was that advancement of bullet design gave the striking power to that caliber to that of larger bullets with the advantage of being the able to carry additional ammunition without being excessively hindered by the weight.
>

Tom you are not a reloader.
Here are 154 different compositions and that's only one
vendor's web page

https://www.brownells.com/reloading/powder/index.htm

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

On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 7:53:20 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/14/2022 9:48 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 9:26:52 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 2/12/2022 8:56 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 6:43:54 PM UTC-6, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 7:24:12 PM UTC-5, Tim R wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Some discussion earlier about the military mindset and tradition.
> >>>>
> >>>> I read a fascinating book about the evolution of the military long arm over time, and there was violent disagreement from the earliest days over the choice of calibre which continues to this day. The title escapes me.
> >>>>
> >>>> The original musket was in .69 caliber. By the Civil War this had shrunk to .58, over the bitter resistance of what they called gravel bellies. Soldiers could carry more ammo, so they British sshot more ammo, so somebody had to pay for, procure, and deliver more ammo.
> >>>>
> >>>> .45 caliber owned the late 1800s, with the .30 appearing near the end. The Phillippine conflict still had mostly trapdoor springfields in .45 but I the .30 Krag was used. Every reduction was fought ferociously by the oldtimers.
> >>>>
> >>>> There were extensive tests of lethality (sheep I think), range, and accuracy at Aberdeen Proving ground, and out to about 1000 yards the .276 did as well as the larger calibers.
> >>>>
> >>>> In Vietnam we went to .223, which I think is the sweet spot - smaller loses range and penetration, larger loses ability to carry enough ammo and recoil hurts accuracy for most soldiers. (I recently rewatched Zulu. Those rifles were Martini-Henrys in .577/.450, meaning they were a .577 cartridge case necked down to fire a .450 caliber 480 grain bullet. Recoil had to be extreme with that loading, and the average soldier probably weighed about 140.)
> >>>
> >>> Your description of caliber size decreasing over the centuries leaves out one pretty important fact. Gun powder changed from black powder to smokeless to whatever high tech propellant we are using today. Back with your original British Brown Bess .69 cartridge/.75 caliber, it was propelled with relatively weak black powder. By the time the 1898 Cuba war came along with Teddy leading the Rough Riders up the hill they were using smokeless powder in their .30-40 Krag rifles. And then I am guessing there were more advancements in gun powder leading up to Vietnam and the use of 5.56 NATO (.223). So with the smaller and skinnier bullets using more explosive propellant, the killing force, energy foot pounds of force delivered to the target, was the same or even more.
> >>>
> >>
> >> +1
> >
> > Andrew, there has been almost no advancement in the composition of smokeless powders for over 100 years. The base of it is nitrocellulose and using anything with a faster burn would explode shells in their chambers. The only reason that the .223 caliber was used was that advancement of bullet design gave the striking power to that caliber to that of larger bullets with the advantage of being the able to carry additional ammunition without being excessively hindered by the weight.
> >
> Tom you are not a reloader.
> Here are 154 different compositions and that's only one
> vendor's web page
>
> https://www.brownells.com/reloading/powder/index.htm

All of my guns, powder scale and bullet press have disappeared since my concussion. My younger brother is evasive about this but he is afraid of guns and I think that he made me get rid of everything when I was so malleable from the concussion. But I was a shooter and a reloader. I still have my super .357's in a box that my brother didn't know was there. Generally speaking you only reload because you shoot a very large amount. Buying factory loads is by far the safest thing to do and the difference in velocity and distance are miniscule. The Super loads I hand loaded are at the very edge of safety and to tell you the truth, regardless of what someone says, a .38 is more than sufficient for home defense. These .357's are more likely to go through someone and cause other problems. Everyone is presently buying 9 mm and the majority of ammunition for that caliber are hard point and the bullet generally goes through. My NCIS buddy won't use them because of that. Rather he uses a .357. That was issue since you might run up against a man with armor and a load like that would still knock him down.

Remember when I said that you could burn yourself by holding a pistol and especially large calibers incorrectly and these idiots who have never even held a pistol let along fired one were outraged?

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

On 2/13/2022 7:33 PM, John B. wrote:
>
>> On 2/13/2022 12:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> You're giving the advantages applicable to a combat weapon.
>>> What's the advantage of making combat weapons available to every
>>> fan of shoot-em-up video games? Is it that they can have more fun
>>> "pretending" while they shoot at silhouette targets?
>>>
>>> Does that advantage really outweigh the proven risk of multiple mass
>>> shootings, of risk to law enforcement officers, of risk to random bystanders?
>>>
>>> Why do so many other countries disagree? How do Canadians even manage?
>>>

> I think that the real point is that the U.S. Constitution - the basic
> law of the land - assures the citizenry the right to own and bare
> arms. I'm sure that some would wish that law didn't exist but it does.
> And, I might add, it has been tested by the Supreme Court and, so far,
> it remains in place.

You're oversimplifying. "The right to bare [sic] arms" was established
back around 1790 or so, in very different times. For roughly 200 years,
case after case in the Supreme Court acknowledged that the preceding
phrase regarding "A well-regulated militia" was important context
informing that phrase; and that in any case, the amendment did NOT mean
that any person could own any type of armament; that restrictions were
necessary.

Then the NRA became a heavily politicized tool of gun manufacturers and
the extreme right wing. An organization that was once about
marksmanship, with very rational positions (e.g. restrictions on
concealed carry, restrictions on combat-optimized weapons) began
opposing any and all restrictions on any and all kinds of guns. It
helped fund political campaigns that resulted in a Supreme Court for
which decades, perhaps centuries of precedents count less than the
wishes of the far right.

The Second Amendment worked pretty well as originally intended, in a
nation that was almost all wilderness, with low-tech firearms and
socially responsible patriots willing to join well-regulated militias.

But that's not the modern world. I think that's why other modern
civilized nations didn't repeat our Second Amendment mistakes.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/13/2022 8:05 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:04:06 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>> As I've pointed out repeatedly, the AR platform has several features
>> that are optimized for combat situations. Compared to typical hunting
>> rifles, it is more compact, lighter weight, has a bigger magazine
>> capacity which can be easily expanded to ludicrous size, shoots rounds
>> that are themselves light weight so more can be carried, has a pistol
>> grip intended to keep control even when running, dodging, etc.
>>
>> The platform was originally designed with that combat use in mind. And
>> none of those features are particularly useful for any other purpose,
>> except _pretending_ to that use at a shooting range. Or just looking macho.
>
> But Frank... yes you can buy 30 round magazines for AR type rifles...
> and you can buy 5 round magazines. And, contrary to your arguments it
> is used extensively for target shooting as well as hunting ...

30 round magazines seem to be the most typical. If ARs were absolutely
restricted to five round magazines, I wouldn't mind them quite so much.
Five rounds is fine for legitimate uses. 30 rounds is for battle.

Do people target shoot ARs? Of course. But they're typically not
practicing for hunting, because the gun isn't the most effective type
for hunting. Nobody says "Grab your AR and lets get us some rabbits."
Nobody says "Let's set our AR sights for 500 yards and go hunt elk."

I believe most people who target shoot ARs have subconscious fantasies
of blowing away The Other Guys. But only if it should become necessary,
of course!

--
- Frank Krygowski

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

My girlfriend shoots targets with a Boy Scout rifle - a
Ruger 10-22 so I gave her several 30-round banana magazines
which are very handy to use.

https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-b7687/images/stencil/500x659/products/6893/18463/MGRUG90591_1_HR-1022--BX25-25rd-CLEAR-side-s-o__63359.1554943416.jpg?c=2&imbypass=on

She also likes the polymer stock - much lighter than the
wooden original.

People like what they like, which is fine. But then again
some people don't like that people like what they like. That
can be a problem.

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

On 2/14/2022 12:57 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/14/2022 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 2/13/2022 8:05 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:04:06 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>
>>>> As I've pointed out repeatedly, the AR platform has
>>>> several features
>>>> that are optimized for combat situations. Compared to
>>>> typical hunting
>>>> rifles, it is more compact, lighter weight, has a bigger
>>>> magazine
>>>> capacity which can be easily expanded to ludicrous size,
>>>> shoots rounds
>>>> that are themselves light weight so more can be carried,
>>>> has a pistol
>>>> grip intended to keep control even when running, dodging,
>>>> etc.
>>>>
>>>> The platform was originally designed with that combat use
>>>> in mind. And
>>>> none of those features are particularly useful for any
>>>> other purpose,
>>>> except _pretending_ to that use at a shooting range. Or
>>>> just looking macho.
>>>
>>> But Frank... yes you can buy 30 round magazines for AR
>>> type rifles...
>>> and you can buy 5 round magazines. And, contrary to your
>>> arguments it
>>> is used extensively for target shooting as well as hunting
>>> ...
>>
>> 30 round magazines seem to be the most typical. If ARs were
>> absolutely restricted to five round magazines, I wouldn't
>> mind them quite so much. Five rounds is fine for legitimate
>> uses. 30 rounds is for battle.
>>
>> Do people target shoot ARs? Of course. But they're typically
>> not practicing for hunting, because the gun isn't the most
>> effective type for hunting. Nobody says "Grab your AR and
>> lets get us some rabbits." Nobody says "Let's set our AR
>> sights for 500 yards and go hunt elk."
>>
>> I believe most people who target shoot ARs have subconscious
>> fantasies of blowing away The Other Guys. But only if it
>> should become necessary, of course!
>>
>
> My girlfriend shoots targets with a Boy Scout rifle - a Ruger 10-22 so I
> gave her several 30-round banana magazines which are very handy to use.
>
> https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-b7687/images/stencil/500x659/products/6893/18463/MGRUG90591_1_HR-1022--BX25-25rd-CLEAR-side-s-o__63359.1554943416.jpg?c=2&imbypass=on

I used to have a Ruger 10-22. I never, ever needed or wanted a bigger
magazine for it. I can't imagine a situation where that would be a
significant net benefit. Compared to an AR, it's relatively harmless,
but it still seems weird.

> People like what they like, which is fine. But then again some people
> don't like that people like what they like. That can be a problem.

When "People like what they like" imposes significant societal harm,
THAT can be a problem. If it were not so, we wouldn't have any laws at all.

A guy who likes to drive a military tank down neighborhood streets would
be a problem. A guy who likes to practice tossing hand grenades would be
a problem. And I think letting any nut buy and carry any gun they want
is a problem. Almost all developed countries agree with me and with the
relevant data.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 6:24:31 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:

> >
> >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.

Or you're hunting, and you want to quietly chamber a round, without the clunk of the bolt snapping forward, so you ease it forward. Then use the forward assist to ensure it's in battery. Or you check that you did chamber one, same thing.

Whatever the actual numbers are, isn't it clear that the mass shootings are a tiny percentage of the homicides?
And that the focus on the AR15 really is applicable only to that tiny percentage?

I would do a couple things to reduce all gun homicides instead.

On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 8:59:51 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/13/2022 8:05 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:04:06 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >
> >> As I've pointed out repeatedly, the AR platform has several features
> >> that are optimized for combat situations. Compared to typical hunting
> >> rifles, it is more compact, lighter weight, has a bigger magazine
> >> capacity which can be easily expanded to ludicrous size, shoots rounds
> >> that are themselves light weight so more can be carried, has a pistol
> >> grip intended to keep control even when running, dodging, etc.
> >>
> >> The platform was originally designed with that combat use in mind. And
> >> none of those features are particularly useful for any other purpose,
> >> except _pretending_ to that use at a shooting range. Or just looking macho.
> >
> > But Frank... yes you can buy 30 round magazines for AR type rifles...
> > and you can buy 5 round magazines. And, contrary to your arguments it
> > is used extensively for target shooting as well as hunting ...
>
> 30 round magazines seem to be the most typical. If ARs were absolutely
> restricted to five round magazines, I wouldn't mind them quite so much.
> Five rounds is fine for legitimate uses. 30 rounds is for battle.
>
> Do people target shoot ARs? Of course. But they're typically not
> practicing for hunting, because the gun isn't the most effective type
> for hunting. Nobody says "Grab your AR and lets get us some rabbits."
> Nobody says "Let's set our AR sights for 500 yards and go hunt elk."
>
> I believe most people who target shoot ARs have subconscious fantasies
> of blowing away The Other Guys. But only if it should become necessary,
> of course!

Frank, if there's anything we can absolutely trust it's your fantasies about other people.

On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 8:59:51 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/13/2022 8:05 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:04:06 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >
> >> As I've pointed out repeatedly, the AR platform has several features
> >> that are optimized for combat situations. Compared to typical hunting
> >> rifles, it is more compact, lighter weight, has a bigger magazine
> >> capacity which can be easily expanded to ludicrous size, shoots rounds
> >> that are themselves light weight so more can be carried, has a pistol
> >> grip intended to keep control even when running, dodging, etc.
> >>
> >> The platform was originally designed with that combat use in mind. And
> >> none of those features are particularly useful for any other purpose,
> >> except _pretending_ to that use at a shooting range. Or just looking macho.
> >
> > But Frank... yes you can buy 30 round magazines for AR type rifles...
> > and you can buy 5 round magazines. And, contrary to your arguments it
> > is used extensively for target shooting as well as hunting ...
>
> 30 round magazines seem to be the most typical. If ARs were absolutely
> restricted to five round magazines, I wouldn't mind them quite so much.
> Five rounds is fine for legitimate uses. 30 rounds is for battle.
>
> Do people target shoot ARs? Of course. But they're typically not
> practicing for hunting, because the gun isn't the most effective type
> for hunting. Nobody says "Grab your AR and lets get us some rabbits."
> Nobody says "Let's set our AR sights for 500 yards and go hunt elk."
>
> I believe most people who target shoot ARs have subconscious fantasies
> of blowing away The Other Guys. But only if it should become necessary,
> of course!

I would be willing to limit them to five rounds only if the first two went through your brain.

On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 10:47:45 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/14/2022 12:57 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 2/14/2022 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On 2/13/2022 8:05 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:04:06 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> As I've pointed out repeatedly, the AR platform has
> >>>> several features
> >>>> that are optimized for combat situations. Compared to
> >>>> typical hunting
> >>>> rifles, it is more compact, lighter weight, has a bigger
> >>>> magazine
> >>>> capacity which can be easily expanded to ludicrous size,
> >>>> shoots rounds
> >>>> that are themselves light weight so more can be carried,
> >>>> has a pistol
> >>>> grip intended to keep control even when running, dodging,
> >>>> etc.
> >>>>
> >>>> The platform was originally designed with that combat use
> >>>> in mind. And
> >>>> none of those features are particularly useful for any
> >>>> other purpose,
> >>>> except _pretending_ to that use at a shooting range. Or
> >>>> just looking macho.
> >>>
> >>> But Frank... yes you can buy 30 round magazines for AR
> >>> type rifles...
> >>> and you can buy 5 round magazines. And, contrary to your
> >>> arguments it
> >>> is used extensively for target shooting as well as hunting
> >>> ...
> >>
> >> 30 round magazines seem to be the most typical. If ARs were
> >> absolutely restricted to five round magazines, I wouldn't
> >> mind them quite so much. Five rounds is fine for legitimate
> >> uses. 30 rounds is for battle.
> >>
> >> Do people target shoot ARs? Of course. But they're typically
> >> not practicing for hunting, because the gun isn't the most
> >> effective type for hunting. Nobody says "Grab your AR and
> >> lets get us some rabbits." Nobody says "Let's set our AR
> >> sights for 500 yards and go hunt elk."
> >>
> >> I believe most people who target shoot ARs have subconscious
> >> fantasies of blowing away The Other Guys. But only if it
> >> should become necessary, of course!
> >>
> >
> > My girlfriend shoots targets with a Boy Scout rifle - a Ruger 10-22 so I
> > gave her several 30-round banana magazines which are very handy to use.
> >
> > https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-b7687/images/stencil/500x659/products/6893/18463/MGRUG90591_1_HR-1022--BX25-25rd-CLEAR-side-s-o__63359.1554943416.jpg?c=2&imbypass=on
> I used to have a Ruger 10-22. I never, ever needed or wanted a bigger
> magazine for it. I can't imagine a situation where that would be a
> significant net benefit. Compared to an AR, it's relatively harmless,
> but it still seems weird.
> > People like what they like, which is fine. But then again some people
> > don't like that people like what they like. That can be a problem.
> When "People like what they like" imposes significant societal harm,
> THAT can be a problem. If it were not so, we wouldn't have any laws at all.
>
> A guy who likes to drive a military tank down neighborhood streets would
> be a problem. A guy who likes to practice tossing hand grenades would be
> a problem. And I think letting any nut buy and carry any gun they want
> is a problem. Almost all developed countries agree with me and with the
> relevant data.

The assassin's gun is the .22. So tell us Frank, how many people do you think have been killed in the last 50 years with a AR-15?

On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 11:11:59 AM UTC-8, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
> Whatever the actual numbers are, isn't it clear that the mass shootings are a tiny percentage of the homicides?
> And that the focus on the AR15 really is applicable only to that tiny percentage?
>
> I would do a couple things to reduce all gun homicides instead.

The FBI statistics are that less than 3% of homicides have used AR15's. But don't ask Frank since he is more than willing to lie about it.

On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 2:18:35 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 8:59:51 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 2/13/2022 8:05 PM, John B. wrote:
> > > On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:04:06 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > >
> > >> As I've pointed out repeatedly, the AR platform has several features
> > >> that are optimized for combat situations. Compared to typical hunting
> > >> rifles, it is more compact, lighter weight, has a bigger magazine
> > >> capacity which can be easily expanded to ludicrous size, shoots rounds
> > >> that are themselves light weight so more can be carried, has a pistol
> > >> grip intended to keep control even when running, dodging, etc.
> > >>
> > >> The platform was originally designed with that combat use in mind. And
> > >> none of those features are particularly useful for any other purpose,
> > >> except _pretending_ to that use at a shooting range. Or just looking macho.
> > >
> > > But Frank... yes you can buy 30 round magazines for AR type rifles...
> > > and you can buy 5 round magazines. And, contrary to your arguments it
> > > is used extensively for target shooting as well as hunting ...
> >
> > 30 round magazines seem to be the most typical. If ARs were absolutely
> > restricted to five round magazines, I wouldn't mind them quite so much.
> > Five rounds is fine for legitimate uses. 30 rounds is for battle.
> >
> > Do people target shoot ARs? Of course. But they're typically not
> > practicing for hunting, because the gun isn't the most effective type
> > for hunting. Nobody says "Grab your AR and lets get us some rabbits."
> > Nobody says "Let's set our AR sights for 500 yards and go hunt elk."
> >
> > I believe most people who target shoot ARs have subconscious fantasies
> > of blowing away The Other Guys. But only if it should become necessary,
> > of course!
> I would be willing to limit them to five rounds only if the first two went through your brain.

I'd be willing to allow 100 round magazines if the first 99 went through your brain.
"Magazines available up to 30 rounds for visiting gay bath houses" - Tom Kunich

On 2/14/2022 2:18 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 8:59:51 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>
>> I believe most people who target shoot ARs have subconscious fantasies
>> of blowing away The Other Guys. But only if it should become necessary,
>> of course!
>
> I would be willing to limit them to five rounds only if the first two went through your brain.

And that's precisely the type of fantasy I'm discussing. It's vulgar,
crude and cowardly. It should not be promoted, let alone glorified.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 11:53:20 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/14/2022 2:18 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 8:59:51 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I believe most people who target shoot ARs have subconscious fantasies
> >> of blowing away The Other Guys. But only if it should become necessary,
> >> of course!
> >
> > I would be willing to limit them to five rounds only if the first two went through your brain.
> And that's precisely the type of fantasy I'm discussing. It's vulgar,
> crude and cowardly. It should not be promoted, let alone glorified.

Frank, YOUJUST FUCKING LIED ABOUT IT. You'd be OK if the magazines were limited to 5 rounds? That means to anyone with the use of English that you see ART15's as a threat. Tell us more of your damned lies. I'm sure that you can abuse English enough to try it.

On 2/14/2022 1:15 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 2:11:59 PM UTC-5, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Whatever the actual numbers are, isn't it clear that the mass shootings are a tiny percentage of the homicides?
>> And that the focus on the AR15 really is applicable only to that tiny percentage?
>>
>> I would do a couple things to reduce all gun homicides instead.
>
> That sounds like you're advocating a more broad based approach to gun control, rather than focusing on assault weapons?
> "Magazines available up to 30 rounds for visiting gay bath houses" - Tom Kunich
>

Few 'mass' events are jihadis or maniacs, fewer still with
AR-15 or any long gun:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/dead-injured-early-morning-shooting-bar/story?id=77147828

Then again, firearms are only a subset of violence. Ever
'borrow' tools? Always return them promptly!

https://923wnpc.com/morristown-man-killed-over-dispute-about-tools/

Not that any murder is 'OK' but, in the world as we find it,
there are much larger problems, such as hospital-acquired
fatal sepsis for 70,000 Americans per yer and steadily
growing, despite efforts (or feints?) to control it. All
equally dead.

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