On 3/6/2022 5:46 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 11:17:54 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/5/2022 11:09 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>
>>> Frank, of course rants and raves from a position of ignorance,
>>> particularly regarding firearms. The short barrel rifles that he
>>> screams about are perfectly legal...
>>
>> John, a minute's thought should have stopped you from typing that
>> paragraph. I'm not ignorant of the firearm laws. This long argument
>> began when I said I'd like U.S. laws to be closer to Canadian laws. Or
>> British laws. Or Irish laws, and so on.
>>
>> If you've somehow forgotten that, go back and re-read.
>
> No Frank, that just isn't true. You initially stated that Canada gun
> crimes were far fewer then the U.S.

<sigh> Go back and re-read the thread, John. You've forgotten a lot.

FWIW, I just checked and it seems Andrew was the first person to turn
the thread from off-road riding hazards to guns. On my system, that post
is dated 2/17, 9:34 AM.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/6/2022 8:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/6/2022 5:46 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 11:17:54 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/5/2022 11:09 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Frank, of course rants and raves from a position of
>>>> ignorance,
>>>> particularly regarding firearms. The short barrel rifles
>>>> that he
>>>> screams about are perfectly legal...
>>>
>>> John, a minute's thought should have stopped you from
>>> typing that
>>> paragraph. I'm not ignorant of the firearm laws. This
>>> long argument
>>> began when I said I'd like U.S. laws to be closer to
>>> Canadian laws. Or
>>> British laws. Or Irish laws, and so on.
>>>
>>> If you've somehow forgotten that, go back and re-read.
>>
>> No Frank, that just isn't true. You initially stated that
>> Canada gun
>> crimes were far fewer then the U.S.
>
> <sigh> Go back and re-read the thread, John. You've
> forgotten a lot.
>
> FWIW, I just checked and it seems Andrew was the first
> person to turn the thread from off-road riding hazards to
> guns. On my system, that post is dated 2/17, 9:34 AM.
>

I checked that. 9:34PM to you 8:34PM Central Time.

I responded to Mr Slocumb's comment on the Remington
insurers' settlement of a civil suit.

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

On Sun, 06 Mar 2022 20:39:35 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 3/6/2022 8:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 3/6/2022 5:46 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 11:17:54 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/5/2022 11:09 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Frank, of course rants and raves from a position of
>>>>> ignorance,
>>>>> particularly regarding firearms. The short barrel rifles
>>>>> that he
>>>>> screams about are perfectly legal...
>>>>
>>>> John, a minute's thought should have stopped you from
>>>> typing that
>>>> paragraph. I'm not ignorant of the firearm laws. This
>>>> long argument
>>>> began when I said I'd like U.S. laws to be closer to
>>>> Canadian laws. Or
>>>> British laws. Or Irish laws, and so on.
>>>>
>>>> If you've somehow forgotten that, go back and re-read.
>>>
>>> No Frank, that just isn't true. You initially stated that
>>> Canada gun
>>> crimes were far fewer then the U.S.
>>
>> <sigh> Go back and re-read the thread, John. You've
>> forgotten a lot.
>>
>> FWIW, I just checked and it seems Andrew was the first
>> person to turn the thread from off-road riding hazards to
>> guns. On my system, that post is dated 2/17, 9:34 AM.
>>
>
>I checked that. 9:34PM to you 8:34PM Central Time.
>
>I responded to Mr Slocumb's comment on the Remington
>insurers' settlement of a civil suit.

I just read an account of Remington's tale of woe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_Arms
It seems an amazing story of mismanagement. Certainly their long guns
were extremely well accepted by the market and I'd guess that the 870
shotgun and the 700 bolt action rifle are still considered as some of
the best guns available.

Strange how one can make some of the best items in a business and
still go broke.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 5:25:57 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 14:28:46 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 10:09:32 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> >> On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 17:17:01 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 11:54:38 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> >> On 3/4/2022 8:43 PM, John B. wrote:
> >> >> > On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 20:02:22 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >> >> > <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On 3/4/2022 7:03 PM, John B. wrote:
> >> >> >>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 12:58:50 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >> >> >>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>> On 3/3/2022 9:47 PM, John B. wrote:
> >> >> >>>>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 20:48:51 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >> >> >>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>> On 3/3/2022 8:29 PM, John B. wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 12:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> "Assault rifles" as in commonly used language - rifles with
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> multiple design features originally and purposely included
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> for effectiveness in assault or other combat.
> >> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Yes, some people prefer to restrict the definition to those
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> guns having built in full auto capability. Some do not use
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> that restriction.
> >> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> If accessories are readily available to allow emptying a 30
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> round magazine in much less than ten seconds, I think the
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> restricted definition is worthless. That capability is
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> intended for combat or assault.
> >> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>> The thing is that nearly all "improvements" in firearm design was
> >> >> >>>>>>> intended to make them a more effective combat weapon.
> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>> John, IIRC you've said you used to hunt. I assume you used a shotgun or
> >> >> >>>>>> a rifle, as is typical with most hunters.
> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>> Care to tell us what models, and what design features it had that made
> >> >> >>>>>> it a "more effective combat weapon," as opposed to a better hunting weapon?
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> Well, tell me what a "better hunting weapon" is.
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> But your argue is ridiculous at best. I say that nearly all
> >> >> >>>>> improvements were intended to make then more effective combat weapons"
> >> >> >>>>> and you start talking about hunting.
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> My first rifle was a ,22 single shot bolt action Winchester rifle. the
> >> >> >>>>> first single shot bolt action rifle was developed by von Dreyse and
> >> >> >>>>> used by the army of Prussia in 1841.
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> In later years I built "varmint rifles" based on the "short mauser"
> >> >> >>>>> actions - all surplus from some army or another, a bolt action, action
> >> >> >>>>> with a magazine, developed by Peter Paul and Wilhelm Mauser and
> >> >> >>>>> accepted by the Prussian government on 2 December 1871.
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> I could go on but why bother as just about any firearm you can mention
> >> >> >>>>> is, or has been, used by the military or law enforcement and with the
> >> >> >>>>> exception of the early "Elephant Rifles" I can think of no "guns"
> >> >> >>>>> developed solely for hunting,
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> Tell us more about your hunting rifles. Did they have a shorter barrel
> >> >> >>>> length, like an AR, or longer barrel length like most other rifles?
> >> >> >>>> Barrels as short as 15 inches are great for street warfare. Most hunters
> >> >> >>>> want something well over 20 inches.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> Did your hunting rifles have pistol grips? They're very handy if you've
> >> >> >>>> got to jump and dodge around to avoid real or pretend enemy fire. Did
> >> >> >>>> the squirrels and woodchucks fire back at you, making that grip necessary?
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> How big was the magazine, and how fast was the action on your hunting
> >> >> >>>> rifle? Could you empty a 30 round magazine into a rabbit in less than
> >> >> >>>> ten seconds? And hey, could you fit a drum magazine in case 30 rounds
> >> >> >>>> didn't take down that rabbit?
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> Did you use a "red dot" sight? You can get on target SO much faster,
> >> >> >>>> which is handy if the deer you're after is also shooting back at you.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> I could go on, but I'd appreciate answers to those questions instead of
> >> >> >>>> evasions.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> You know Frank, I believe that you have really "gone right round the
> >> >> >>> bend" as they used to say. A 15" barrel is great for street fighting?
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> But o.k. Barrel lengths:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Barrel length, from a technical view point, is based on two things.
> >> >> >>> (1) the necessary length to allow for burning the majority of the
> >> >> >>> powder charge.
> >> >> >>> This is the reason that slow burning black powder weapons had a much
> >> >> >>> long barrel then is necessary for modern fast burning smokeless powder
> >> >> >>> weapons. And:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> (2) to provide, with "iron sights", the necessary length between the
> >> >> >>> front and rear sight to produce accuracy.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Oh yes, I forget, with a military weapon a longer barrel was thought
> >> >> >>> to make a better weapon when the bayonet was attached as in years gone
> >> >> >>> by the basic Infantry tactic was to march, in formation, up to,
> >> >> >>> perhaps 50 yards, or even closer, to the enemy. Present the musket,
> >> >> >>> fire, and charge with the bayonet.
> >> >> >>> This was highly successful in wars from about 1420 until the invention
> >> >> >>> of the Minne Bullet, in the mid 1800's.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Next question, big magazines... Well, rifles and pistols have had
> >> >> >>> "large" magazines for years and years. .22 rifles have had magazines
> >> >> >>> that extended the full length of the barrel, certainly as ling as I've
> >> >> >>> been around. And, as I have repeatedly mentioned 30 round magazines
> >> >> >>> have been available for the German Luger, since WW I days.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Lets see... Red Dot sights. That is a subject abut which I have no
> >> >> >>> personal knowledge but optical sights, in general were first made
> >> >> >>> because it allowed the shooter to see better and thus aim more
> >> >> >>> accurately then with the so called "iron sights".
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> But more to the point.
> >> >> >>> Why this irrational terror regarding modern firearms? After all you
> >> >> >>> are, statistically, in twice as much danger from a Black man with
> >> >> >>> his fist clenched then you are from the terrifying AR type of firearm.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> John, you carefully avoided answering each question.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Based on that, I assume not one of the features I asked about was on
> >> >> >> your hunting guns.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Which is not surprising. Those features, common on ARs, are rarely worth
> >> >> >> having on a gun used for hunting. Their value is for combat situations.
> >> >> >> Or for pretending to be in a combat situation.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Yes, you did state "hunting rifles" and I replied to you giving you
> >> >> > the technically answers to your questions - with the exception of the
> >> >> > red dot things which I'm not familiar with.
> >> >> You replied by assiduously evading my direct questions about your
> >> >> specific guns. Can't you be man enough to own up to it?
> >> >
> >> >Not to take John's side or your side in this rousing argument. But I do not think wise, intelligent, thinking people talk about their own personal guns in public. That is something only done by YouTube idiots and other senseless braggarts. There are some things, like your social security number, or your favorite sex positions, that should not be talked about in public. Detailed gun ownership is one of them.
> >> Well, I wouldn't exactly say that. It is quite common for, target
> >> shooters, for example to extol the advantages or bemoan the decencies
> >> of the gun that they are using.
> >
> >Yes in certain situations, a person can and does brag about his equipment. As you state, sharp shooting rifles with twelve different scopes and lenses on them and various adjustable weights hanging on them to counter balance the rotation of the earth and gravity. Used exclusively by target shooters in competitions. Or Revolutionary war or Daniel Boone recreators. They may wax eloquently about their flintlock rifle and authentic hand made black powder and hand cast lead bullets they fire out of their beloved rifles. But for the average, general public citizen, it is very unwise to publicly discuss and disclose the guns they own. And for your target shooters, they are carrying on their conversations exclusively with other target shooters.
> Well, I'm not sure about the home made black powder. I've actually
> made some and discovered why "grained" or "corned" gunpowder became so
> popular (:-)
>
> But why ever not talk about guns? Or girls? Or how much whiskey you
> drank at the party last Saturday night? All of which, I might note, I
> have heard discussed in various groups.
>
> Or even bicycles, for that matter?
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 19:21:13 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 5:25:57 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 14:28:46 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 10:09:32 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 17:17:01 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 11:54:38 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >> >> On 3/4/2022 8:43 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >> >> > On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 20:02:22 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> >> >> > <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> On 3/4/2022 7:03 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >> >> >>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 12:58:50 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> >> >> >>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>> On 3/3/2022 9:47 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 20:48:51 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> >> >> >>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>> On 3/3/2022 8:29 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 12:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> "Assault rifles" as in commonly used language - rifles with
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> multiple design features originally and purposely included
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> for effectiveness in assault or other combat.
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Yes, some people prefer to restrict the definition to those
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> guns having built in full auto capability. Some do not use
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> that restriction.
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> If accessories are readily available to allow emptying a 30
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> round magazine in much less than ten seconds, I think the
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> restricted definition is worthless. That capability is
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> intended for combat or assault.
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>> The thing is that nearly all "improvements" in firearm design was
>> >> >> >>>>>>> intended to make them a more effective combat weapon.
>> >> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>> John, IIRC you've said you used to hunt. I assume you used a shotgun or
>> >> >> >>>>>> a rifle, as is typical with most hunters.
>> >> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>> Care to tell us what models, and what design features it had that made
>> >> >> >>>>>> it a "more effective combat weapon," as opposed to a better hunting weapon?
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> Well, tell me what a "better hunting weapon" is.
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> But your argue is ridiculous at best. I say that nearly all
>> >> >> >>>>> improvements were intended to make then more effective combat weapons"
>> >> >> >>>>> and you start talking about hunting.
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> My first rifle was a ,22 single shot bolt action Winchester rifle. the
>> >> >> >>>>> first single shot bolt action rifle was developed by von Dreyse and
>> >> >> >>>>> used by the army of Prussia in 1841.
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> In later years I built "varmint rifles" based on the "short mauser"
>> >> >> >>>>> actions - all surplus from some army or another, a bolt action, action
>> >> >> >>>>> with a magazine, developed by Peter Paul and Wilhelm Mauser and
>> >> >> >>>>> accepted by the Prussian government on 2 December 1871.
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> I could go on but why bother as just about any firearm you can mention
>> >> >> >>>>> is, or has been, used by the military or law enforcement and with the
>> >> >> >>>>> exception of the early "Elephant Rifles" I can think of no "guns"
>> >> >> >>>>> developed solely for hunting,
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> Tell us more about your hunting rifles. Did they have a shorter barrel
>> >> >> >>>> length, like an AR, or longer barrel length like most other rifles?
>> >> >> >>>> Barrels as short as 15 inches are great for street warfare. Most hunters
>> >> >> >>>> want something well over 20 inches.
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> Did your hunting rifles have pistol grips? They're very handy if you've
>> >> >> >>>> got to jump and dodge around to avoid real or pretend enemy fire. Did
>> >> >> >>>> the squirrels and woodchucks fire back at you, making that grip necessary?
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> How big was the magazine, and how fast was the action on your hunting
>> >> >> >>>> rifle? Could you empty a 30 round magazine into a rabbit in less than
>> >> >> >>>> ten seconds? And hey, could you fit a drum magazine in case 30 rounds
>> >> >> >>>> didn't take down that rabbit?
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> Did you use a "red dot" sight? You can get on target SO much faster,
>> >> >> >>>> which is handy if the deer you're after is also shooting back at you.
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> I could go on, but I'd appreciate answers to those questions instead of
>> >> >> >>>> evasions.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> You know Frank, I believe that you have really "gone right round the
>> >> >> >>> bend" as they used to say. A 15" barrel is great for street fighting?
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> But o.k. Barrel lengths:
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Barrel length, from a technical view point, is based on two things.
>> >> >> >>> (1) the necessary length to allow for burning the majority of the
>> >> >> >>> powder charge.
>> >> >> >>> This is the reason that slow burning black powder weapons had a much
>> >> >> >>> long barrel then is necessary for modern fast burning smokeless powder
>> >> >> >>> weapons. And:
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> (2) to provide, with "iron sights", the necessary length between the
>> >> >> >>> front and rear sight to produce accuracy.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Oh yes, I forget, with a military weapon a longer barrel was thought
>> >> >> >>> to make a better weapon when the bayonet was attached as in years gone
>> >> >> >>> by the basic Infantry tactic was to march, in formation, up to,
>> >> >> >>> perhaps 50 yards, or even closer, to the enemy. Present the musket,
>> >> >> >>> fire, and charge with the bayonet.
>> >> >> >>> This was highly successful in wars from about 1420 until the invention
>> >> >> >>> of the Minne Bullet, in the mid 1800's.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Next question, big magazines... Well, rifles and pistols have had
>> >> >> >>> "large" magazines for years and years. .22 rifles have had magazines
>> >> >> >>> that extended the full length of the barrel, certainly as ling as I've
>> >> >> >>> been around. And, as I have repeatedly mentioned 30 round magazines
>> >> >> >>> have been available for the German Luger, since WW I days.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Lets see... Red Dot sights. That is a subject abut which I have no
>> >> >> >>> personal knowledge but optical sights, in general were first made
>> >> >> >>> because it allowed the shooter to see better and thus aim more
>> >> >> >>> accurately then with the so called "iron sights".
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> But more to the point.
>> >> >> >>> Why this irrational terror regarding modern firearms? After all you
>> >> >> >>> are, statistically, in twice as much danger from a Black man with
>> >> >> >>> his fist clenched then you are from the terrifying AR type of firearm.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> John, you carefully avoided answering each question.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Based on that, I assume not one of the features I asked about was on
>> >> >> >> your hunting guns.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Which is not surprising. Those features, common on ARs, are rarely worth
>> >> >> >> having on a gun used for hunting. Their value is for combat situations.
>> >> >> >> Or for pretending to be in a combat situation.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Yes, you did state "hunting rifles" and I replied to you giving you
>> >> >> > the technically answers to your questions - with the exception of the
>> >> >> > red dot things which I'm not familiar with.
>> >> >> You replied by assiduously evading my direct questions about your
>> >> >> specific guns. Can't you be man enough to own up to it?
>> >> >
>> >> >Not to take John's side or your side in this rousing argument. But I do not think wise, intelligent, thinking people talk about their own personal guns in public. That is something only done by YouTube idiots and other senseless braggarts. There are some things, like your social security number, or your favorite sex positions, that should not be talked about in public. Detailed gun ownership is one of them.
>> >> Well, I wouldn't exactly say that. It is quite common for, target
>> >> shooters, for example to extol the advantages or bemoan the decencies
>> >> of the gun that they are using.
>> >
>> >Yes in certain situations, a person can and does brag about his equipment. As you state, sharp shooting rifles with twelve different scopes and lenses on them and various adjustable weights hanging on them to counter balance the rotation of the earth and gravity. Used exclusively by target shooters in competitions. Or Revolutionary war or Daniel Boone recreators. They may wax eloquently about their flintlock rifle and authentic hand made black powder and hand cast lead bullets they fire out of their beloved rifles. But for the average, general public citizen, it is very unwise to publicly discuss and disclose the guns they own. And for your target shooters, they are carrying on their conversations exclusively with other target shooters.
>> Well, I'm not sure about the home made black powder. I've actually
>> made some and discovered why "grained" or "corned" gunpowder became so
>> popular (:-)
>>
>> But why ever not talk about guns? Or girls? Or how much whiskey you
>> drank at the party last Saturday night? All of which, I might note, I
>> have heard discussed in various groups.
>>
>> Or even bicycles, for that matter?
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
>Unlike women, girls, whiskey, alcohol, or bicycles, guns are used to kill people. There is danger involved with the gun. Either for the gun owner or another party. A made up scenario to illustrate my point. A bad person is looking for a gun for a future crime. A gun registered or not registered to someone else. Not to the bad person. They hear someone talking about all the guns they own. The bad person says I will rob that person. And since I know he has guns, I will kill first, rob later. And I will be prepared with another gun to start, or with a knife ready to stab and slash first. Not a typical robbery. I am assuming in a typical robbery the criminal tries to make it as easy for themselves as possible. They watch a potential target and time it so no one is home or at the store. Then they break in and steal stuff. Easier to break in if no one is there. Easier to steal if no one is there to stop you. Easier to get away if no one is there to stop you. Criminals
are
>not all stupid. They think about how to do the crime.

On 3/6/2022 9:21 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 5:25:57 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 14:28:46 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 10:09:32 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 17:17:01 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 11:54:38 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/4/2022 8:43 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 20:02:22 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2022 7:03 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 12:58:50 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 9:47 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 20:48:51 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 8:29 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 12:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Assault rifles" as in commonly used language - rifles with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple design features originally and purposely included
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for effectiveness in assault or other combat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, some people prefer to restrict the definition to those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guns having built in full auto capability. Some do not use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that restriction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If accessories are readily available to allow emptying a 30
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> round magazine in much less than ten seconds, I think the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restricted definition is worthless. That capability is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intended for combat or assault.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The thing is that nearly all "improvements" in firearm design was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> intended to make them a more effective combat weapon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> John, IIRC you've said you used to hunt. I assume you used a shotgun or
>>>>>>>>>>>> a rifle, as is typical with most hunters.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Care to tell us what models, and what design features it had that made
>>>>>>>>>>>> it a "more effective combat weapon," as opposed to a better hunting weapon?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, tell me what a "better hunting weapon" is.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But your argue is ridiculous at best. I say that nearly all
>>>>>>>>>>> improvements were intended to make then more effective combat weapons"
>>>>>>>>>>> and you start talking about hunting.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> My first rifle was a ,22 single shot bolt action Winchester rifle. the
>>>>>>>>>>> first single shot bolt action rifle was developed by von Dreyse and
>>>>>>>>>>> used by the army of Prussia in 1841.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In later years I built "varmint rifles" based on the "short mauser"
>>>>>>>>>>> actions - all surplus from some army or another, a bolt action, action
>>>>>>>>>>> with a magazine, developed by Peter Paul and Wilhelm Mauser and
>>>>>>>>>>> accepted by the Prussian government on 2 December 1871.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I could go on but why bother as just about any firearm you can mention
>>>>>>>>>>> is, or has been, used by the military or law enforcement and with the
>>>>>>>>>>> exception of the early "Elephant Rifles" I can think of no "guns"
>>>>>>>>>>> developed solely for hunting,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tell us more about your hunting rifles. Did they have a shorter barrel
>>>>>>>>>> length, like an AR, or longer barrel length like most other rifles?
>>>>>>>>>> Barrels as short as 15 inches are great for street warfare. Most hunters
>>>>>>>>>> want something well over 20 inches.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Did your hunting rifles have pistol grips? They're very handy if you've
>>>>>>>>>> got to jump and dodge around to avoid real or pretend enemy fire. Did
>>>>>>>>>> the squirrels and woodchucks fire back at you, making that grip necessary?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How big was the magazine, and how fast was the action on your hunting
>>>>>>>>>> rifle? Could you empty a 30 round magazine into a rabbit in less than
>>>>>>>>>> ten seconds? And hey, could you fit a drum magazine in case 30 rounds
>>>>>>>>>> didn't take down that rabbit?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Did you use a "red dot" sight? You can get on target SO much faster,
>>>>>>>>>> which is handy if the deer you're after is also shooting back at you.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I could go on, but I'd appreciate answers to those questions instead of
>>>>>>>>>> evasions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You know Frank, I believe that you have really "gone right round the
>>>>>>>>> bend" as they used to say. A 15" barrel is great for street fighting?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But o.k. Barrel lengths:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Barrel length, from a technical view point, is based on two things.
>>>>>>>>> (1) the necessary length to allow for burning the majority of the
>>>>>>>>> powder charge.
>>>>>>>>> This is the reason that slow burning black powder weapons had a much
>>>>>>>>> long barrel then is necessary for modern fast burning smokeless powder
>>>>>>>>> weapons. And:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (2) to provide, with "iron sights", the necessary length between the
>>>>>>>>> front and rear sight to produce accuracy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oh yes, I forget, with a military weapon a longer barrel was thought
>>>>>>>>> to make a better weapon when the bayonet was attached as in years gone
>>>>>>>>> by the basic Infantry tactic was to march, in formation, up to,
>>>>>>>>> perhaps 50 yards, or even closer, to the enemy. Present the musket,
>>>>>>>>> fire, and charge with the bayonet.
>>>>>>>>> This was highly successful in wars from about 1420 until the invention
>>>>>>>>> of the Minne Bullet, in the mid 1800's.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Next question, big magazines... Well, rifles and pistols have had
>>>>>>>>> "large" magazines for years and years. .22 rifles have had magazines
>>>>>>>>> that extended the full length of the barrel, certainly as ling as I've
>>>>>>>>> been around. And, as I have repeatedly mentioned 30 round magazines
>>>>>>>>> have been available for the German Luger, since WW I days.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Lets see... Red Dot sights. That is a subject abut which I have no
>>>>>>>>> personal knowledge but optical sights, in general were first made
>>>>>>>>> because it allowed the shooter to see better and thus aim more
>>>>>>>>> accurately then with the so called "iron sights".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But more to the point.
>>>>>>>>> Why this irrational terror regarding modern firearms? After all you
>>>>>>>>> are, statistically, in twice as much danger from a Black man with
>>>>>>>>> his fist clenched then you are from the terrifying AR type of firearm.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John, you carefully avoided answering each question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Based on that, I assume not one of the features I asked about was on
>>>>>>>> your hunting guns.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which is not surprising. Those features, common on ARs, are rarely worth
>>>>>>>> having on a gun used for hunting. Their value is for combat situations.
>>>>>>>> Or for pretending to be in a combat situation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, you did state "hunting rifles" and I replied to you giving you
>>>>>>> the technically answers to your questions - with the exception of the
>>>>>>> red dot things which I'm not familiar with.
>>>>>> You replied by assiduously evading my direct questions about your
>>>>>> specific guns. Can't you be man enough to own up to it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not to take John's side or your side in this rousing argument. But I do not think wise, intelligent, thinking people talk about their own personal guns in public. That is something only done by YouTube idiots and other senseless braggarts. There are some things, like your social security number, or your favorite sex positions, that should not be talked about in public. Detailed gun ownership is one of them.
>>>> Well, I wouldn't exactly say that. It is quite common for, target
>>>> shooters, for example to extol the advantages or bemoan the decencies
>>>> of the gun that they are using.
>>>
>>> Yes in certain situations, a person can and does brag about his equipment. As you state, sharp shooting rifles with twelve different scopes and lenses on them and various adjustable weights hanging on them to counter balance the rotation of the earth and gravity. Used exclusively by target shooters in competitions. Or Revolutionary war or Daniel Boone recreators. They may wax eloquently about their flintlock rifle and authentic hand made black powder and hand cast lead bullets they fire out of their beloved rifles. But for the average, general public citizen, it is very unwise to publicly discuss and disclose the guns they own. And for your target shooters, they are carrying on their conversations exclusively with other target shooters.
>> Well, I'm not sure about the home made black powder. I've actually
>> made some and discovered why "grained" or "corned" gunpowder became so
>> popular (:-)
>>
>> But why ever not talk about guns? Or girls? Or how much whiskey you
>> drank at the party last Saturday night? All of which, I might note, I
>> have heard discussed in various groups.
>>
>> Or even bicycles, for that matter?
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
> Unlike women, girls, whiskey, alcohol, or bicycles, guns are used to kill people. There is danger involved with the gun. Either for the gun owner or another party. A made up scenario to illustrate my point. A bad person is looking for a gun for a future crime. A gun registered or not registered to someone else. Not to the bad person. They hear someone talking about all the guns they own. The bad person says I will rob that person. And since I know he has guns, I will kill first, rob later. And I will be prepared with another gun to start, or with a knife ready to stab and slash first. Not a typical robbery. I am assuming in a typical robbery the criminal tries to make it as easy for themselves as possible. They watch a potential target and time it so no one is home or at the store. Then they break in and steal stuff. Easier to break in if no one is there. Easier to steal if no one is there to stop you. Easier to get away if no one is there to stop you. Criminals
are not all stupid. They think about how to do the crime.
>

On 3/6/2022 9:52 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 19:21:13 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
> <ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 5:25:57 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 14:28:46 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 10:09:32 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 17:17:01 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 11:54:38 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/4/2022 8:43 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 20:02:22 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2022 7:03 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 12:58:50 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 9:47 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 20:48:51 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 8:29 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 12:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Assault rifles" as in commonly used language - rifles with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple design features originally and purposely included
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for effectiveness in assault or other combat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, some people prefer to restrict the definition to those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guns having built in full auto capability. Some do not use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that restriction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If accessories are readily available to allow emptying a 30
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> round magazine in much less than ten seconds, I think the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restricted definition is worthless. That capability is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intended for combat or assault.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The thing is that nearly all "improvements" in firearm design was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intended to make them a more effective combat weapon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> John, IIRC you've said you used to hunt. I assume you used a shotgun or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a rifle, as is typical with most hunters.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Care to tell us what models, and what design features it had that made
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it a "more effective combat weapon," as opposed to a better hunting weapon?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, tell me what a "better hunting weapon" is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But your argue is ridiculous at best. I say that nearly all
>>>>>>>>>>>> improvements were intended to make then more effective combat weapons"
>>>>>>>>>>>> and you start talking about hunting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> My first rifle was a ,22 single shot bolt action Winchester rifle. the
>>>>>>>>>>>> first single shot bolt action rifle was developed by von Dreyse and
>>>>>>>>>>>> used by the army of Prussia in 1841.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In later years I built "varmint rifles" based on the "short mauser"
>>>>>>>>>>>> actions - all surplus from some army or another, a bolt action, action
>>>>>>>>>>>> with a magazine, developed by Peter Paul and Wilhelm Mauser and
>>>>>>>>>>>> accepted by the Prussian government on 2 December 1871.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I could go on but why bother as just about any firearm you can mention
>>>>>>>>>>>> is, or has been, used by the military or law enforcement and with the
>>>>>>>>>>>> exception of the early "Elephant Rifles" I can think of no "guns"
>>>>>>>>>>>> developed solely for hunting,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Tell us more about your hunting rifles. Did they have a shorter barrel
>>>>>>>>>>> length, like an AR, or longer barrel length like most other rifles?
>>>>>>>>>>> Barrels as short as 15 inches are great for street warfare. Most hunters
>>>>>>>>>>> want something well over 20 inches.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Did your hunting rifles have pistol grips? They're very handy if you've
>>>>>>>>>>> got to jump and dodge around to avoid real or pretend enemy fire. Did
>>>>>>>>>>> the squirrels and woodchucks fire back at you, making that grip necessary?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How big was the magazine, and how fast was the action on your hunting
>>>>>>>>>>> rifle? Could you empty a 30 round magazine into a rabbit in less than
>>>>>>>>>>> ten seconds? And hey, could you fit a drum magazine in case 30 rounds
>>>>>>>>>>> didn't take down that rabbit?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Did you use a "red dot" sight? You can get on target SO much faster,
>>>>>>>>>>> which is handy if the deer you're after is also shooting back at you.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I could go on, but I'd appreciate answers to those questions instead of
>>>>>>>>>>> evasions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You know Frank, I believe that you have really "gone right round the
>>>>>>>>>> bend" as they used to say. A 15" barrel is great for street fighting?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But o.k. Barrel lengths:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Barrel length, from a technical view point, is based on two things.
>>>>>>>>>> (1) the necessary length to allow for burning the majority of the
>>>>>>>>>> powder charge.
>>>>>>>>>> This is the reason that slow burning black powder weapons had a much
>>>>>>>>>> long barrel then is necessary for modern fast burning smokeless powder
>>>>>>>>>> weapons. And:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (2) to provide, with "iron sights", the necessary length between the
>>>>>>>>>> front and rear sight to produce accuracy.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Oh yes, I forget, with a military weapon a longer barrel was thought
>>>>>>>>>> to make a better weapon when the bayonet was attached as in years gone
>>>>>>>>>> by the basic Infantry tactic was to march, in formation, up to,
>>>>>>>>>> perhaps 50 yards, or even closer, to the enemy. Present the musket,
>>>>>>>>>> fire, and charge with the bayonet.
>>>>>>>>>> This was highly successful in wars from about 1420 until the invention
>>>>>>>>>> of the Minne Bullet, in the mid 1800's.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Next question, big magazines... Well, rifles and pistols have had
>>>>>>>>>> "large" magazines for years and years. .22 rifles have had magazines
>>>>>>>>>> that extended the full length of the barrel, certainly as ling as I've
>>>>>>>>>> been around. And, as I have repeatedly mentioned 30 round magazines
>>>>>>>>>> have been available for the German Luger, since WW I days.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Lets see... Red Dot sights. That is a subject abut which I have no
>>>>>>>>>> personal knowledge but optical sights, in general were first made
>>>>>>>>>> because it allowed the shooter to see better and thus aim more
>>>>>>>>>> accurately then with the so called "iron sights".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But more to the point.
>>>>>>>>>> Why this irrational terror regarding modern firearms? After all you
>>>>>>>>>> are, statistically, in twice as much danger from a Black man with
>>>>>>>>>> his fist clenched then you are from the terrifying AR type of firearm.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> John, you carefully avoided answering each question.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Based on that, I assume not one of the features I asked about was on
>>>>>>>>> your hunting guns.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which is not surprising. Those features, common on ARs, are rarely worth
>>>>>>>>> having on a gun used for hunting. Their value is for combat situations.
>>>>>>>>> Or for pretending to be in a combat situation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, you did state "hunting rifles" and I replied to you giving you
>>>>>>>> the technically answers to your questions - with the exception of the
>>>>>>>> red dot things which I'm not familiar with.
>>>>>>> You replied by assiduously evading my direct questions about your
>>>>>>> specific guns. Can't you be man enough to own up to it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not to take John's side or your side in this rousing argument. But I do not think wise, intelligent, thinking people talk about their own personal guns in public. That is something only done by YouTube idiots and other senseless braggarts. There are some things, like your social security number, or your favorite sex positions, that should not be talked about in public. Detailed gun ownership is one of them.
>>>>> Well, I wouldn't exactly say that. It is quite common for, target
>>>>> shooters, for example to extol the advantages or bemoan the decencies
>>>>> of the gun that they are using.
>>>>
>>>> Yes in certain situations, a person can and does brag about his equipment. As you state, sharp shooting rifles with twelve different scopes and lenses on them and various adjustable weights hanging on them to counter balance the rotation of the earth and gravity. Used exclusively by target shooters in competitions. Or Revolutionary war or Daniel Boone recreators. They may wax eloquently about their flintlock rifle and authentic hand made black powder and hand cast lead bullets they fire out of their beloved rifles. But for the average, general public citizen, it is very unwise to publicly discuss and disclose the guns they own. And for your target shooters, they are carrying on their conversations exclusively with other target shooters.
>>> Well, I'm not sure about the home made black powder. I've actually
>>> made some and discovered why "grained" or "corned" gunpowder became so
>>> popular (:-)
>>>
>>> But why ever not talk about guns? Or girls? Or how much whiskey you
>>> drank at the party last Saturday night? All of which, I might note, I
>>> have heard discussed in various groups.
>>>
>>> Or even bicycles, for that matter?
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> John B.
>>
>> Unlike women, girls, whiskey, alcohol, or bicycles, guns are used to kill people. There is danger involved with the gun. Either for the gun owner or another party. A made up scenario to illustrate my point. A bad person is looking for a gun for a future crime. A gun registered or not registered to someone else. Not to the bad person. They hear someone talking about all the guns they own. The bad person says I will rob that person. And since I know he has guns, I will kill first, rob later. And I will be prepared with another gun to start, or with a knife ready to stab and slash first. Not a typical robbery. I am assuming in a typical robbery the criminal tries to make it as easy for themselves as possible. They watch a potential target and time it so no one is home or at the store. Then they break in and steal stuff. Easier to break in if no one is there. Easier to steal if no one is there to stop you. Easier to get away if no one is there to stop you. Criminal
s
Click here to read the complete article

On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 6:14:59 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/6/2022 9:52 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 19:21:13 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> > <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 5:25:57 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 14:28:46 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 10:09:32 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 17:17:01 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 11:54:38 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 3/4/2022 8:43 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 20:02:22 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2022 7:03 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 12:58:50 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 9:47 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 20:48:51 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 8:29 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 12:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Assault rifles" as in commonly used language - rifles with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple design features originally and purposely included
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for effectiveness in assault or other combat.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, some people prefer to restrict the definition to those
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guns having built in full auto capability. Some do not use
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that restriction.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If accessories are readily available to allow emptying a 30
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> round magazine in much less than ten seconds, I think the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restricted definition is worthless. That capability is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intended for combat or assault.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The thing is that nearly all "improvements" in firearm design was
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> intended to make them a more effective combat weapon.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> John, IIRC you've said you used to hunt. I assume you used a shotgun or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> a rifle, as is typical with most hunters.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Care to tell us what models, and what design features it had that made
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> it a "more effective combat weapon," as opposed to a better hunting weapon?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Well, tell me what a "better hunting weapon" is.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> But your argue is ridiculous at best. I say that nearly all
> >>>>>>>>>>>> improvements were intended to make then more effective combat weapons"
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and you start talking about hunting.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> My first rifle was a ,22 single shot bolt action Winchester rifle. the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> first single shot bolt action rifle was developed by von Dreyse and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> used by the army of Prussia in 1841.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> In later years I built "varmint rifles" based on the "short mauser"
> >>>>>>>>>>>> actions - all surplus from some army or another, a bolt action, action
> >>>>>>>>>>>> with a magazine, developed by Peter Paul and Wilhelm Mauser and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> accepted by the Prussian government on 2 December 1871.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I could go on but why bother as just about any firearm you can mention
> >>>>>>>>>>>> is, or has been, used by the military or law enforcement and with the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> exception of the early "Elephant Rifles" I can think of no "guns"
> >>>>>>>>>>>> developed solely for hunting,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Tell us more about your hunting rifles. Did they have a shorter barrel
> >>>>>>>>>>> length, like an AR, or longer barrel length like most other rifles?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Barrels as short as 15 inches are great for street warfare. Most hunters
> >>>>>>>>>>> want something well over 20 inches.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Did your hunting rifles have pistol grips? They're very handy if you've
> >>>>>>>>>>> got to jump and dodge around to avoid real or pretend enemy fire. Did
> >>>>>>>>>>> the squirrels and woodchucks fire back at you, making that grip necessary?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> How big was the magazine, and how fast was the action on your hunting
> >>>>>>>>>>> rifle? Could you empty a 30 round magazine into a rabbit in less than
> >>>>>>>>>>> ten seconds? And hey, could you fit a drum magazine in case 30 rounds
> >>>>>>>>>>> didn't take down that rabbit?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Did you use a "red dot" sight? You can get on target SO much faster,
> >>>>>>>>>>> which is handy if the deer you're after is also shooting back at you.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I could go on, but I'd appreciate answers to those questions instead of
> >>>>>>>>>>> evasions.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You know Frank, I believe that you have really "gone right round the
> >>>>>>>>>> bend" as they used to say. A 15" barrel is great for street fighting?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> But o.k. Barrel lengths:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Barrel length, from a technical view point, is based on two things.
> >>>>>>>>>> (1) the necessary length to allow for burning the majority of the
> >>>>>>>>>> powder charge.
> >>>>>>>>>> This is the reason that slow burning black powder weapons had a much
> >>>>>>>>>> long barrel then is necessary for modern fast burning smokeless powder
> >>>>>>>>>> weapons. And:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> (2) to provide, with "iron sights", the necessary length between the
> >>>>>>>>>> front and rear sight to produce accuracy.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Oh yes, I forget, with a military weapon a longer barrel was thought
> >>>>>>>>>> to make a better weapon when the bayonet was attached as in years gone
> >>>>>>>>>> by the basic Infantry tactic was to march, in formation, up to,
> >>>>>>>>>> perhaps 50 yards, or even closer, to the enemy. Present the musket,
> >>>>>>>>>> fire, and charge with the bayonet.
> >>>>>>>>>> This was highly successful in wars from about 1420 until the invention
> >>>>>>>>>> of the Minne Bullet, in the mid 1800's.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Next question, big magazines... Well, rifles and pistols have had
> >>>>>>>>>> "large" magazines for years and years. .22 rifles have had magazines
> >>>>>>>>>> that extended the full length of the barrel, certainly as ling as I've
> >>>>>>>>>> been around. And, as I have repeatedly mentioned 30 round magazines
> >>>>>>>>>> have been available for the German Luger, since WW I days.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Lets see... Red Dot sights. That is a subject abut which I have no
> >>>>>>>>>> personal knowledge but optical sights, in general were first made
> >>>>>>>>>> because it allowed the shooter to see better and thus aim more
> >>>>>>>>>> accurately then with the so called "iron sights".
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> But more to the point.
> >>>>>>>>>> Why this irrational terror regarding modern firearms? After all you
> >>>>>>>>>> are, statistically, in twice as much danger from a Black man with
> >>>>>>>>>> his fist clenched then you are from the terrifying AR type of firearm.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> John, you carefully avoided answering each question.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Based on that, I assume not one of the features I asked about was on
> >>>>>>>>> your hunting guns.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Which is not surprising. Those features, common on ARs, are rarely worth
> >>>>>>>>> having on a gun used for hunting. Their value is for combat situations.
> >>>>>>>>> Or for pretending to be in a combat situation.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Yes, you did state "hunting rifles" and I replied to you giving you
> >>>>>>>> the technically answers to your questions - with the exception of the
> >>>>>>>> red dot things which I'm not familiar with.
> >>>>>>> You replied by assiduously evading my direct questions about your
> >>>>>>> specific guns. Can't you be man enough to own up to it?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not to take John's side or your side in this rousing argument. But I do not think wise, intelligent, thinking people talk about their own personal guns in public. That is something only done by YouTube idiots and other senseless braggarts. There are some things, like your social security number, or your favorite sex positions, that should not be talked about in public. Detailed gun ownership is one of them.
> >>>>> Well, I wouldn't exactly say that. It is quite common for, target
> >>>>> shooters, for example to extol the advantages or bemoan the decencies
> >>>>> of the gun that they are using.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes in certain situations, a person can and does brag about his equipment. As you state, sharp shooting rifles with twelve different scopes and lenses on them and various adjustable weights hanging on them to counter balance the rotation of the earth and gravity. Used exclusively by target shooters in competitions. Or Revolutionary war or Daniel Boone recreators. They may wax eloquently about their flintlock rifle and authentic hand made black powder and hand cast lead bullets they fire out of their beloved rifles. But for the average, general public citizen, it is very unwise to publicly discuss and disclose the guns they own. And for your target shooters, they are carrying on their conversations exclusively with other target shooters.
> >>> Well, I'm not sure about the home made black powder. I've actually
> >>> made some and discovered why "grained" or "corned" gunpowder became so
> >>> popular (:-)
> >>>
> >>> But why ever not talk about guns? Or girls? Or how much whiskey you
> >>> drank at the party last Saturday night? All of which, I might note, I
> >>> have heard discussed in various groups.
> >>>
> >>> Or even bicycles, for that matter?
> >>> --
> >>> Cheers,
> >>>
> >>> John B.
> >>
> >> Unlike women, girls, whiskey, alcohol, or bicycles, guns are used to kill people. There is danger involved with the gun. Either for the gun owner or another party. A made up scenario to illustrate my point. A bad person is looking for a gun for a future crime. A gun registered or not registered to someone else. Not to the bad person. They hear someone talking about all the guns they own. The bad person says I will rob that person. And since I know he has guns, I will kill first, rob later. And I will be prepared with another gun to start, or with a knife ready to stab and slash first. Not a typical robbery. I am assuming in a typical robbery the criminal tries to make it as easy for themselves as possible. They watch a potential target and time it so no one is home or at the store. Then they break in and steal stuff. Easier to break in if no one is there. Easier to steal if no one is there to stop you. Easier to get away if no one is there to stop you. Criminal
> s
> > are
> >> not all stupid. They think about how to do the crime.
> >
> > Yup... and knives are used in mass killings, and fire, and even
> > baseball bats can kill. Or even hands and feet.
> >
> > And of course guns are stolen, and cars are stolen, and diamond rings
> > are stolen, and even goats and horses. Oh My Goodness and even wives,
> > to hear some tell it.
> >
> > Shoot, years ago kids in New York used to make their own guns - Zip
> > Guns they were called.
> >
> > I'm not denying your supposition but I doubt that it is a common
> > method of procuring a firearm solely for the purpose of committing a
> > felony.
> >
> > See
> > https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/32630640/5385318.pdf?sequence=1
> > For some details.
> >
> Stolen weapons used in crime are more common in areas where
> legal ownership is most restricted:
> https://cwbchicago.com/

Am 26.02.2022 um 22:42 schrieb AMuzi:
> On 2/26/2022 3:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 2/26/2022 12:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 2/26/2022 9:57 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 2/26/2022 1:47 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 11:32:25 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/24/2022 6:06 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 12:02:17 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2022 11:19 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2022 10:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 5:49:51 PM UTC-8,
>>>>>>>>>> AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2022 6:44 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 12:27:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 9:16 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 7:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:31 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, of course I was ridiculing Franks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assertion, at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least as I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understood him, that somehow one would be more,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or less,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stricken by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grief depending on the cause of death.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're being totally unrealistic, in a foolish
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempt to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pursue a nonsense argument.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Neither individuals nor society treat all deaths
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as equal,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nor have identical feelings about all deaths.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The death of an elderly person who has lived a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> full life is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one thing. Perhaps it is regrettable depending on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conditions, but often people remark "Well, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was time" or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something similar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The death from natural causes of a middle aged
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or younger
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person is generally treated as a bit more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regrettable. A
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similar death of a child even more so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An accidental death of those people triggers yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regret, and may lead to anger at how such a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing could be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed to happen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The murder of a person rightfully triggers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outrage and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> criminal prosecution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The murder of a child, even more outrage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The killing of 20 children sitting in school is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truly heinous. At least, by people who are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avid fans of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the weapon used.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I understand you and you're not wrong in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principle but policy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on anomalies doesn't always work out well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1927-bombing-remains-americas-deadliest-school-massacre-180963355/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A British-born engineer and colleague of mine in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1970s used to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mock
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a slogan the NRA promoted in those days. He said
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "And when bombs are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wonder if today's pretend soldiers will use the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Second Amendment to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> call for free use and possession of bombs?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You are slipping right down into the throes of
>>>>>>>>>>>> silly ness.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your colleague's mocking comment is pretty silly as
>>>>>>>>>>>> today, in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> U.S., several states with rather severe hand gun
>>>>>>>>>>>> control laws are
>>>>>>>>>>>> finding more and more being smuggled into the
>>>>>>>>>>>> state. So it is a truism
>>>>>>>>>>>> that when guns are outlawed only criminals will
>>>>>>>>>>>> have guns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You might try a google search on "gun+smuggle". I
>>>>>>>>>>>> get 15,600,000
>>>>>>>>>>>> "hits".
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/gun-trafficking-ring-ohio-camden-new-jersey-weapons-arrests/205248/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Out here in the actual world it's the same market
>>>>>>>>>>> phenomenon
>>>>>>>>>>> as dope. Prohibition or hyper regulatory tax schemes
>>>>>>>>>>> guarantee a higher profit to contraband.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> OK, you guys have convinced me! Laws never work, so
>>>>>>>>>> we should outlaw
>>>>>>>>>> all laws. Got it!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (Since this is Usenet, I may have to say that was
>>>>>>>>>> sarcasm.)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Suggestions welcome.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OK:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Canadian laws.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> British laws.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> French laws.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Heck, Swiss laws. Lots of guns, but in "well regulated
>>>>>>>> militias." And
>>>>>>>> far, far less gun crime than the U.S.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Very few developed nations emulate the U.S.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Re Canadian laws...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I did a bit of research and Canada has a far lower
>>>>>>> incident of violent
>>>>>>> crime, i.e. law breaking, then the U.S.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you suppose that this is a matter of better laws or
>>>>>>> is it a matter
>>>>>>> of a more law abiding people?
>>>>>>> And, I suspect the same applies to The British, and the
>>>>>>> Swiss.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Got it. It has nothing to do with laws or national
>>>>>> policies! The people
>>>>>> in (say) Windsor, Ontario are a different species than
>>>>>> those in (say)
>>>>>> Detroit, Michigan. Their motivations, morals, reflexes
>>>>>> and behaviors are
>>>>>> all very, very different. And the people south of that
>>>>>> border can never,
>>>>>> ever be expected to stop trying to kill one another.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm learning so much here!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Again, please note the sarcasm.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Be as sarcastic as you will but reality shows a very
>>>>> different
>>>>> picture:
>>>>>
>>>>> Crime
>>>>> Offences / 100,000 population  Canada
>>>>> Offences / 100,000 population U.S.
>>>>>
>>>>>   Rape
>>>>> Canada 1.69
>>>>> U.S. 27.31
>>>>>
>>>>> Assault
>>>>> Canada 150.81
>>>>> U.S. 246.84
>>>>>
>>>>> Incarcerated
>>>>> Canada 104
>>>>> U.S. 629
>>>>
>>>> And your explanation for the differences, please? Is it
>>>> genetics? Are Canadians (like Brits, Irish, French, Dutch
>>>> etc.) are born with some special law abiding gene that's
>>>> missing in Americans?
>>>>
>>>> Or is there a chance that a nation's policies and laws
>>>> actually affect citizens' behaviors?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Laws and policies are dynamic and (more or less) reflect
>>> the culture. Where there is significant conflict (i.e.,
>>> Prohibition) the laws and/or policies change, not the
>>> culture.
>>>
>>> You may well argue that alcohol is an anomaly and you
>>> meant well understood crimes of long standing such as
>>> theft and robbery and that those are different. You'd be
>>> wrong.
>>>
>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/new-yorks-no-bail-law-leaves-a-trail-of-violence/ar-BB1gmfaq
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/06/us/alvin-bragg-manhattan-district-attorney-crimes-prosecution/index.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.foxla.com/news/gascon-launches-diversion-program-for-minors-who-commit-felony-burglary-vehicle-theft-robbery
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/meet-chesa-boudin-the-rogue-prosecutor-wreaking-havoc-san-francisco
>>>
>>
>>
>> You seem to be rebutting an argument I haven't made.
>>
>> In any case, it seems neither you nor John had no
>> explanation for the differences (nor source) he's found for
>> Canadian vs. U.S. crime stats. You can't be suggesting it's
>> because of the anecdotes and policy changes you cited in
>> those articles. None are more than two years old, and two
>> are only a few months old.
>>
>> Do you have an explanation for Canada's much better numbers?
>> Is their justice system really more strict and punitive than
>> ours?
>>
>> I really don't know the answer. But I very much doubt the
>> better numbers are due to some inborn, genetic difference in
>> the populations.
>>
>
> Sorry if I was not more clear.
>
> I meant that rather than laws changing the culture, cultural changes are
> reflected in different (or, 2022, deficient, lacking, dysfunctional)
> policies and laws.
>
> We are a much more violent nation than Canada. This was not _caused_ by
> repealing death penalty statues nor by redefining 'felony' or what have
> you.

Am 02.03.2022 um 04:59 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
> On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 8:38:58 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:

>> To my point, we agree that home invaders are often shot at,
>> and to some degree wounded but _seldom fatally_, as you
>> note. Unlike hunters, there's a lack of calm deliberate
>> setup and preparation. I noted that difference earlier.
>
> Sorry, I do NOT agree "home invaders are often shot at." Not by any rational definition of "often." First,
> home invasions are far, far from common - although I can talk about two examples I'm familiar with.

The home invasion I had in Minneapolis, I woke up, switched on the
bedside light, and the invader ran away. He'd been under the wrong
impression that the white powder I kept in my kitchen n a small
container was something other than the simple salt it was (given that I
was living in the same student halls as a known drug dealer).

Rolf

On 3/6/2022 9:39 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/6/2022 8:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 3/6/2022 5:46 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 11:17:54 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/5/2022 11:09 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Frank, of course rants and raves from a position of
>>>>> ignorance,
>>>>> particularly regarding firearms. The short barrel rifles
>>>>> that he
>>>>> screams about are perfectly legal...
>>>>
>>>> John, a minute's thought should have stopped you from
>>>> typing that
>>>> paragraph. I'm not ignorant of the firearm laws. This
>>>> long argument
>>>> began when I said I'd like U.S. laws to be closer to
>>>> Canadian laws. Or
>>>> British laws. Or Irish laws, and so on.
>>>>
>>>> If you've somehow forgotten that, go back and re-read.
>>>
>>> No Frank, that just isn't true. You initially stated that
>>> Canada gun
>>> crimes were far fewer then the U.S.
>>
>> <sigh> Go back and re-read the thread, John. You've
>> forgotten a lot.
>>
>> FWIW, I just checked and it seems Andrew was the first
>> person to turn the thread from off-road riding hazards to
>> guns. On my system, that post is dated 2/17, 9:34 AM.
>>
>
> I checked that. 9:34PM to you 8:34PM Central Time.
>
> I responded to Mr Slocumb's comment on the Remington insurers'
> settlement of a civil suit.

Ah, I'm sorry, you're right. PM instead of AM, and you did respond to
John. John was the first to bring up a gun.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/6/2022 10:52 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 19:21:13 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
> <ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Unlike women, girls, whiskey, alcohol, or bicycles, guns are used to kill people. ...
>
> Yup... and knives are used in mass killings...

Numbers, please? Will you tell us the body count for "mass killings" by
knife wielders in the U.S., compared to those perpetrated by those
shooting guns?

Feel free to give your own definition of a "mass killing," but one
accepted definition (U.S. Dept. of Justice) is killing three or more
people in close proximity and within a short time period.

Compare with these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/7/2022 9:11 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/6/2022 9:21 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 5:25:57 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 14:28:46 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 10:09:32 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 17:17:01 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 11:54:38 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/4/2022 8:43 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 20:02:22 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2022 7:03 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 12:58:50 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 9:47 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 20:48:51 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 8:29 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 12:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Assault rifles" as in commonly used language - rifles with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple design features originally and purposely included
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for effectiveness in assault or other combat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, some people prefer to restrict the definition to those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guns having built in full auto capability. Some do not use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that restriction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If accessories are readily available to allow emptying a 30
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> round magazine in much less than ten seconds, I think the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restricted definition is worthless. That capability is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intended for combat or assault.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The thing is that nearly all "improvements" in firearm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intended to make them a more effective combat weapon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> John, IIRC you've said you used to hunt. I assume you used
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a shotgun or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a rifle, as is typical with most hunters.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Care to tell us what models, and what design features it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> had that made
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it a "more effective combat weapon," as opposed to a better
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hunting weapon?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, tell me what a "better hunting weapon" is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But your argue is ridiculous at best. I say that nearly all
>>>>>>>>>>>> improvements were intended to make then more effective
>>>>>>>>>>>> combat weapons"
>>>>>>>>>>>> and you start talking about hunting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> My first rifle was a ,22 single shot bolt action Winchester
>>>>>>>>>>>> rifle. the
>>>>>>>>>>>> first single shot bolt action rifle was developed by von
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dreyse and
>>>>>>>>>>>> used by the army of Prussia in 1841.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In later years I built "varmint rifles" based on the "short
>>>>>>>>>>>> mauser"
>>>>>>>>>>>> actions - all surplus from some army or another, a bolt
>>>>>>>>>>>> action, action
>>>>>>>>>>>> with a magazine, developed by Peter Paul and Wilhelm Mauser and
>>>>>>>>>>>> accepted by the Prussian government on 2 December 1871.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I could go on but why bother as just about any firearm you
>>>>>>>>>>>> can mention
>>>>>>>>>>>> is, or has been, used by the military or law enforcement and
>>>>>>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>>>>>> exception of the early "Elephant Rifles" I can think of no
>>>>>>>>>>>> "guns"
>>>>>>>>>>>> developed solely for hunting,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Tell us more about your hunting rifles. Did they have a
>>>>>>>>>>> shorter barrel
>>>>>>>>>>> length, like an AR, or longer barrel length like most other
>>>>>>>>>>> rifles?
>>>>>>>>>>> Barrels as short as 15 inches are great for street warfare.
>>>>>>>>>>> Most hunters
>>>>>>>>>>> want something well over 20 inches.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Did your hunting rifles have pistol grips? They're very handy
>>>>>>>>>>> if you've
>>>>>>>>>>> got to jump and dodge around to avoid real or pretend enemy
>>>>>>>>>>> fire. Did
>>>>>>>>>>> the squirrels and woodchucks fire back at you, making that
>>>>>>>>>>> grip necessary?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How big was the magazine, and how fast was the action on your
>>>>>>>>>>> hunting
>>>>>>>>>>> rifle? Could you empty a 30 round magazine into a rabbit in
>>>>>>>>>>> less than
>>>>>>>>>>> ten seconds? And hey, could you fit a drum magazine in case
>>>>>>>>>>> 30 rounds
>>>>>>>>>>> didn't take down that rabbit?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Did you use a "red dot" sight? You can get on target SO much
>>>>>>>>>>> faster,
>>>>>>>>>>> which is handy if the deer you're after is also shooting back
>>>>>>>>>>> at you.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I could go on, but I'd appreciate answers to those questions
>>>>>>>>>>> instead of
>>>>>>>>>>> evasions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You know Frank, I believe that you have really "gone right
>>>>>>>>>> round the
>>>>>>>>>> bend" as they used to say. A 15" barrel is great for street
>>>>>>>>>> fighting?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But o.k. Barrel lengths:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Barrel length, from a technical view point, is based on two
>>>>>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>>>>> (1) the necessary length to allow for burning the majority of the
>>>>>>>>>> powder charge.
>>>>>>>>>> This is the reason that slow burning black powder weapons had
>>>>>>>>>> a much
>>>>>>>>>> long barrel then is necessary for modern fast burning
>>>>>>>>>> smokeless powder
>>>>>>>>>> weapons. And:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (2) to provide, with "iron sights", the necessary length
>>>>>>>>>> between the
>>>>>>>>>> front and rear sight to produce accuracy.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Oh yes, I forget, with a military weapon a longer barrel was
>>>>>>>>>> thought
>>>>>>>>>> to make a better weapon when the bayonet was attached as in
>>>>>>>>>> years gone
>>>>>>>>>> by the basic Infantry tactic was to march, in formation, up to,
>>>>>>>>>> perhaps 50 yards, or even closer, to the enemy. Present the
>>>>>>>>>> musket,
>>>>>>>>>> fire, and charge with the bayonet.
>>>>>>>>>> This was highly successful in wars from about 1420 until the
>>>>>>>>>> invention
>>>>>>>>>> of the Minne Bullet, in the mid 1800's.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Next question, big magazines... Well, rifles and pistols have had
>>>>>>>>>> "large" magazines for years and years. .22 rifles have had
>>>>>>>>>> magazines
>>>>>>>>>> that extended the full length of the barrel, certainly as ling
>>>>>>>>>> as I've
>>>>>>>>>> been around. And, as I have repeatedly mentioned 30 round
>>>>>>>>>> magazines
>>>>>>>>>> have been available for the German Luger, since WW I days.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Lets see... Red Dot sights. That is a subject abut which I
>>>>>>>>>> have no
>>>>>>>>>> personal knowledge but optical sights, in general were first made
>>>>>>>>>> because it allowed the shooter to see better and thus aim more
>>>>>>>>>> accurately then with the so called "iron sights".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But more to the point.
>>>>>>>>>> Why this irrational terror regarding modern firearms? After
>>>>>>>>>> all you
>>>>>>>>>> are, statistically, in twice as much danger from a Black man with
>>>>>>>>>> his fist clenched then you are from the terrifying AR type of
>>>>>>>>>> firearm.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> John, you carefully avoided answering each question.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Based on that, I assume not one of the features I asked about
>>>>>>>>> was on
>>>>>>>>> your hunting guns.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which is not surprising. Those features, common on ARs, are
>>>>>>>>> rarely worth
>>>>>>>>> having on a gun used for hunting. Their value is for combat
>>>>>>>>> situations.
>>>>>>>>> Or for pretending to be in a combat situation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, you did state "hunting rifles" and I replied to you giving you
>>>>>>>> the technically answers to your questions - with the exception
>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>> red dot things which I'm not familiar with.
>>>>>>> You replied by assiduously evading my direct questions about your
>>>>>>> specific guns. Can't you be man enough to own up to it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not to take John's side or your side in this rousing argument. But
>>>>>> I do not think wise, intelligent, thinking people talk about their
>>>>>> own personal guns in public. That is something only done by
>>>>>> YouTube idiots and other senseless braggarts. There are some
>>>>>> things, like your social security number, or your favorite sex
>>>>>> positions, that should not be talked about in public. Detailed gun
>>>>>> ownership is one of them.
>>>>> Well, I wouldn't exactly say that. It is quite common for, target
>>>>> shooters, for example to extol the advantages or bemoan the decencies
>>>>> of the gun that they are using.
>>>>
>>>> Yes in certain situations, a person can and does brag about his
>>>> equipment. As you state, sharp shooting rifles with twelve different
>>>> scopes and lenses on them and various adjustable weights hanging on
>>>> them to counter balance the rotation of the earth and gravity. Used
>>>> exclusively by target shooters in competitions. Or Revolutionary war
>>>> or Daniel Boone recreators. They may wax eloquently about their
>>>> flintlock rifle and authentic hand made black powder and hand cast
>>>> lead bullets they fire out of their beloved rifles. But for the
>>>> average, general public citizen, it is very unwise to publicly
>>>> discuss and disclose the guns they own. And for your target
>>>> shooters, they are carrying on their conversations exclusively with
>>>> other target shooters.
>>> Well, I'm not sure about the home made black powder. I've actually
>>> made some and discovered why "grained" or "corned" gunpowder became so
>>> popular (:-)
>>>
>>> But why ever not talk about guns? Or girls? Or how much whiskey you
>>> drank at the party last Saturday night? All of which, I might note, I
>>> have heard discussed in various groups.
>>>
>>> Or even bicycles, for that matter?
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> John B.
>>
>> Unlike women, girls, whiskey, alcohol, or bicycles, guns are used to
>> kill people.  There is danger involved with the gun.  Either for the
>> gun owner or another party.  A made up scenario to illustrate my
>> point.  A bad person is looking for a gun for a future crime.  A gun
>> registered or not registered to someone else.  Not to the bad person.
>> They hear someone talking about all the guns they own.  The bad person
>> says I will rob that person.  And since I know he has guns, I will
>> kill first, rob later.  And I will be prepared with another gun to
>> start, or with a knife ready to stab and slash first.  Not a typical
>> robbery.  I am assuming in a typical robbery the criminal tries to
>> make it as easy for themselves as possible.  They watch a potential
>> target and time it so no one is home or at the store.  Then they break
>> in and steal stuff.  Easier to break in if no one is there.  Easier to
>> steal if no one is there to stop you.  Easier to get away if no one is
>> there to stop you.  Criminals
> are not all stupid.  They think about how to do the crime.
>
> That scenario is common:
> https://ktla.com/news/police-homeowner-shoots-kills-intruder-in-fontana/

On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 10:29:00 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/7/2022 9:11 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 3/6/2022 9:21 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 5:25:57 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 14:28:46 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 10:09:32 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 17:17:01 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 11:54:38 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 3/4/2022 8:43 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 20:02:22 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2022 7:03 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 12:58:50 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 9:47 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 20:48:51 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 8:29 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 12:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Assault rifles" as in commonly used language - rifles with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple design features originally and purposely included
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for effectiveness in assault or other combat.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, some people prefer to restrict the definition to those
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guns having built in full auto capability. Some do not use
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that restriction.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If accessories are readily available to allow emptying a 30
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> round magazine in much less than ten seconds, I think the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restricted definition is worthless. That capability is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intended for combat or assault.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The thing is that nearly all "improvements" in firearm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> design was
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> intended to make them a more effective combat weapon.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> John, IIRC you've said you used to hunt. I assume you used
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> a shotgun or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> a rifle, as is typical with most hunters.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Care to tell us what models, and what design features it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> had that made
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> it a "more effective combat weapon," as opposed to a better
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> hunting weapon?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Well, tell me what a "better hunting weapon" is.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> But your argue is ridiculous at best. I say that nearly all
> >>>>>>>>>>>> improvements were intended to make then more effective
> >>>>>>>>>>>> combat weapons"
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and you start talking about hunting.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> My first rifle was a ,22 single shot bolt action Winchester
> >>>>>>>>>>>> rifle. the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> first single shot bolt action rifle was developed by von
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Dreyse and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> used by the army of Prussia in 1841.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> In later years I built "varmint rifles" based on the "short
> >>>>>>>>>>>> mauser"
> >>>>>>>>>>>> actions - all surplus from some army or another, a bolt
> >>>>>>>>>>>> action, action
> >>>>>>>>>>>> with a magazine, developed by Peter Paul and Wilhelm Mauser and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> accepted by the Prussian government on 2 December 1871.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I could go on but why bother as just about any firearm you
> >>>>>>>>>>>> can mention
> >>>>>>>>>>>> is, or has been, used by the military or law enforcement and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> with the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> exception of the early "Elephant Rifles" I can think of no
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "guns"
> >>>>>>>>>>>> developed solely for hunting,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Tell us more about your hunting rifles. Did they have a
> >>>>>>>>>>> shorter barrel
> >>>>>>>>>>> length, like an AR, or longer barrel length like most other
> >>>>>>>>>>> rifles?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Barrels as short as 15 inches are great for street warfare.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Most hunters
> >>>>>>>>>>> want something well over 20 inches.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Did your hunting rifles have pistol grips? They're very handy
> >>>>>>>>>>> if you've
> >>>>>>>>>>> got to jump and dodge around to avoid real or pretend enemy
> >>>>>>>>>>> fire. Did
> >>>>>>>>>>> the squirrels and woodchucks fire back at you, making that
> >>>>>>>>>>> grip necessary?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> How big was the magazine, and how fast was the action on your
> >>>>>>>>>>> hunting
> >>>>>>>>>>> rifle? Could you empty a 30 round magazine into a rabbit in
> >>>>>>>>>>> less than
> >>>>>>>>>>> ten seconds? And hey, could you fit a drum magazine in case
> >>>>>>>>>>> 30 rounds
> >>>>>>>>>>> didn't take down that rabbit?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Did you use a "red dot" sight? You can get on target SO much
> >>>>>>>>>>> faster,
> >>>>>>>>>>> which is handy if the deer you're after is also shooting back
> >>>>>>>>>>> at you.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I could go on, but I'd appreciate answers to those questions
> >>>>>>>>>>> instead of
> >>>>>>>>>>> evasions.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You know Frank, I believe that you have really "gone right
> >>>>>>>>>> round the
> >>>>>>>>>> bend" as they used to say. A 15" barrel is great for street
> >>>>>>>>>> fighting?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> But o.k. Barrel lengths:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Barrel length, from a technical view point, is based on two
> >>>>>>>>>> things.
> >>>>>>>>>> (1) the necessary length to allow for burning the majority of the
> >>>>>>>>>> powder charge.
> >>>>>>>>>> This is the reason that slow burning black powder weapons had
> >>>>>>>>>> a much
> >>>>>>>>>> long barrel then is necessary for modern fast burning
> >>>>>>>>>> smokeless powder
> >>>>>>>>>> weapons. And:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> (2) to provide, with "iron sights", the necessary length
> >>>>>>>>>> between the
> >>>>>>>>>> front and rear sight to produce accuracy.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Oh yes, I forget, with a military weapon a longer barrel was
> >>>>>>>>>> thought
> >>>>>>>>>> to make a better weapon when the bayonet was attached as in
> >>>>>>>>>> years gone
> >>>>>>>>>> by the basic Infantry tactic was to march, in formation, up to,
> >>>>>>>>>> perhaps 50 yards, or even closer, to the enemy. Present the
> >>>>>>>>>> musket,
> >>>>>>>>>> fire, and charge with the bayonet.
> >>>>>>>>>> This was highly successful in wars from about 1420 until the
> >>>>>>>>>> invention
> >>>>>>>>>> of the Minne Bullet, in the mid 1800's.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Next question, big magazines... Well, rifles and pistols have had
> >>>>>>>>>> "large" magazines for years and years. .22 rifles have had
> >>>>>>>>>> magazines
> >>>>>>>>>> that extended the full length of the barrel, certainly as ling
> >>>>>>>>>> as I've
> >>>>>>>>>> been around. And, as I have repeatedly mentioned 30 round
> >>>>>>>>>> magazines
> >>>>>>>>>> have been available for the German Luger, since WW I days.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Lets see... Red Dot sights. That is a subject abut which I
> >>>>>>>>>> have no
> >>>>>>>>>> personal knowledge but optical sights, in general were first made
> >>>>>>>>>> because it allowed the shooter to see better and thus aim more
> >>>>>>>>>> accurately then with the so called "iron sights".
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> But more to the point.
> >>>>>>>>>> Why this irrational terror regarding modern firearms? After
> >>>>>>>>>> all you
> >>>>>>>>>> are, statistically, in twice as much danger from a Black man with
> >>>>>>>>>> his fist clenched then you are from the terrifying AR type of
> >>>>>>>>>> firearm.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> John, you carefully avoided answering each question.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Based on that, I assume not one of the features I asked about
> >>>>>>>>> was on
> >>>>>>>>> your hunting guns.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Which is not surprising. Those features, common on ARs, are
> >>>>>>>>> rarely worth
> >>>>>>>>> having on a gun used for hunting. Their value is for combat
> >>>>>>>>> situations.
> >>>>>>>>> Or for pretending to be in a combat situation.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Yes, you did state "hunting rifles" and I replied to you giving you
> >>>>>>>> the technically answers to your questions - with the exception
> >>>>>>>> of the
> >>>>>>>> red dot things which I'm not familiar with.
> >>>>>>> You replied by assiduously evading my direct questions about your
> >>>>>>> specific guns. Can't you be man enough to own up to it?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not to take John's side or your side in this rousing argument. But
> >>>>>> I do not think wise, intelligent, thinking people talk about their
> >>>>>> own personal guns in public. That is something only done by
> >>>>>> YouTube idiots and other senseless braggarts. There are some
> >>>>>> things, like your social security number, or your favorite sex
> >>>>>> positions, that should not be talked about in public. Detailed gun
> >>>>>> ownership is one of them.
> >>>>> Well, I wouldn't exactly say that. It is quite common for, target
> >>>>> shooters, for example to extol the advantages or bemoan the decencies
> >>>>> of the gun that they are using.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes in certain situations, a person can and does brag about his
> >>>> equipment. As you state, sharp shooting rifles with twelve different
> >>>> scopes and lenses on them and various adjustable weights hanging on
> >>>> them to counter balance the rotation of the earth and gravity. Used
> >>>> exclusively by target shooters in competitions. Or Revolutionary war
> >>>> or Daniel Boone recreators. They may wax eloquently about their
> >>>> flintlock rifle and authentic hand made black powder and hand cast
> >>>> lead bullets they fire out of their beloved rifles. But for the
> >>>> average, general public citizen, it is very unwise to publicly
> >>>> discuss and disclose the guns they own. And for your target
> >>>> shooters, they are carrying on their conversations exclusively with
> >>>> other target shooters.
> >>> Well, I'm not sure about the home made black powder. I've actually
> >>> made some and discovered why "grained" or "corned" gunpowder became so
> >>> popular (:-)
> >>>
> >>> But why ever not talk about guns? Or girls? Or how much whiskey you
> >>> drank at the party last Saturday night? All of which, I might note, I
> >>> have heard discussed in various groups.
> >>>
> >>> Or even bicycles, for that matter?
> >>> --
> >>> Cheers,
> >>>
> >>> John B.
> >>
> >> Unlike women, girls, whiskey, alcohol, or bicycles, guns are used to
> >> kill people. There is danger involved with the gun. Either for the
> >> gun owner or another party. A made up scenario to illustrate my
> >> point. A bad person is looking for a gun for a future crime. A gun
> >> registered or not registered to someone else. Not to the bad person.
> >> They hear someone talking about all the guns they own. The bad person
> >> says I will rob that person. And since I know he has guns, I will
> >> kill first, rob later. And I will be prepared with another gun to
> >> start, or with a knife ready to stab and slash first. Not a typical
> >> robbery. I am assuming in a typical robbery the criminal tries to
> >> make it as easy for themselves as possible. They watch a potential
> >> target and time it so no one is home or at the store. Then they break
> >> in and steal stuff. Easier to break in if no one is there. Easier to
> >> steal if no one is there to stop you. Easier to get away if no one is
> >> there to stop you. Criminals
> > are not all stupid. They think about how to do the crime.
> >
> > That scenario is common:
> > https://ktla.com/news/police-homeowner-shoots-kills-intruder-in-fontana/
> Correct! It's pretty common for burglars to break into houses known to
> have guns. Guns are more expensive, more compact and easier to sell
> than, say, your big screen TV.
>
> From https://www.nber.org/papers/w8926
>
> " Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative
> burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new
> empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent
> effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes
> that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun
> prevalence."
>
> Also see
> https://www.americanprogress.org/article/gun-theft-united-states-state-state-analysis/
>
> What's far less common? Using a gun to stop a burglary.
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 10:29:00 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/7/2022 9:11 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 3/6/2022 9:21 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 5:25:57 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 14:28:46 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 10:09:32 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 17:17:01 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 11:54:38 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 3/4/2022 8:43 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 20:02:22 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2022 7:03 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 12:58:50 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 9:47 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 20:48:51 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 8:29 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 12:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Assault rifles" as in commonly used language - rifles with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple design features originally and purposely included
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for effectiveness in assault or other combat.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, some people prefer to restrict the definition to those
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guns having built in full auto capability. Some do not use
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that restriction.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If accessories are readily available to allow emptying a 30
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> round magazine in much less than ten seconds, I think the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restricted definition is worthless. That capability is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intended for combat or assault.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The thing is that nearly all "improvements" in firearm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> design was
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> intended to make them a more effective combat weapon.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> John, IIRC you've said you used to hunt. I assume you used
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> a shotgun or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> a rifle, as is typical with most hunters.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Care to tell us what models, and what design features it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> had that made
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> it a "more effective combat weapon," as opposed to a better
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> hunting weapon?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Well, tell me what a "better hunting weapon" is.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> But your argue is ridiculous at best. I say that nearly all
> >>>>>>>>>>>> improvements were intended to make then more effective
> >>>>>>>>>>>> combat weapons"
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and you start talking about hunting.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> My first rifle was a ,22 single shot bolt action Winchester
> >>>>>>>>>>>> rifle. the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> first single shot bolt action rifle was developed by von
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Dreyse and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> used by the army of Prussia in 1841.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> In later years I built "varmint rifles" based on the "short
> >>>>>>>>>>>> mauser"
> >>>>>>>>>>>> actions - all surplus from some army or another, a bolt
> >>>>>>>>>>>> action, action
> >>>>>>>>>>>> with a magazine, developed by Peter Paul and Wilhelm Mauser and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> accepted by the Prussian government on 2 December 1871.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I could go on but why bother as just about any firearm you
> >>>>>>>>>>>> can mention
> >>>>>>>>>>>> is, or has been, used by the military or law enforcement and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> with the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> exception of the early "Elephant Rifles" I can think of no
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "guns"
> >>>>>>>>>>>> developed solely for hunting,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Tell us more about your hunting rifles. Did they have a
> >>>>>>>>>>> shorter barrel
> >>>>>>>>>>> length, like an AR, or longer barrel length like most other
> >>>>>>>>>>> rifles?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Barrels as short as 15 inches are great for street warfare.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Most hunters
> >>>>>>>>>>> want something well over 20 inches.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Did your hunting rifles have pistol grips? They're very handy
> >>>>>>>>>>> if you've
> >>>>>>>>>>> got to jump and dodge around to avoid real or pretend enemy
> >>>>>>>>>>> fire. Did
> >>>>>>>>>>> the squirrels and woodchucks fire back at you, making that
> >>>>>>>>>>> grip necessary?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> How big was the magazine, and how fast was the action on your
> >>>>>>>>>>> hunting
> >>>>>>>>>>> rifle? Could you empty a 30 round magazine into a rabbit in
> >>>>>>>>>>> less than
> >>>>>>>>>>> ten seconds? And hey, could you fit a drum magazine in case
> >>>>>>>>>>> 30 rounds
> >>>>>>>>>>> didn't take down that rabbit?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Did you use a "red dot" sight? You can get on target SO much
> >>>>>>>>>>> faster,
> >>>>>>>>>>> which is handy if the deer you're after is also shooting back
> >>>>>>>>>>> at you.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I could go on, but I'd appreciate answers to those questions
> >>>>>>>>>>> instead of
> >>>>>>>>>>> evasions.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You know Frank, I believe that you have really "gone right
> >>>>>>>>>> round the
> >>>>>>>>>> bend" as they used to say. A 15" barrel is great for street
> >>>>>>>>>> fighting?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> But o.k. Barrel lengths:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Barrel length, from a technical view point, is based on two
> >>>>>>>>>> things.
> >>>>>>>>>> (1) the necessary length to allow for burning the majority of the
> >>>>>>>>>> powder charge.
> >>>>>>>>>> This is the reason that slow burning black powder weapons had
> >>>>>>>>>> a much
> >>>>>>>>>> long barrel then is necessary for modern fast burning
> >>>>>>>>>> smokeless powder
> >>>>>>>>>> weapons. And:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> (2) to provide, with "iron sights", the necessary length
> >>>>>>>>>> between the
> >>>>>>>>>> front and rear sight to produce accuracy.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Oh yes, I forget, with a military weapon a longer barrel was
> >>>>>>>>>> thought
> >>>>>>>>>> to make a better weapon when the bayonet was attached as in
> >>>>>>>>>> years gone
> >>>>>>>>>> by the basic Infantry tactic was to march, in formation, up to,
> >>>>>>>>>> perhaps 50 yards, or even closer, to the enemy. Present the
> >>>>>>>>>> musket,
> >>>>>>>>>> fire, and charge with the bayonet.
> >>>>>>>>>> This was highly successful in wars from about 1420 until the
> >>>>>>>>>> invention
> >>>>>>>>>> of the Minne Bullet, in the mid 1800's.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Next question, big magazines... Well, rifles and pistols have had
> >>>>>>>>>> "large" magazines for years and years. .22 rifles have had
> >>>>>>>>>> magazines
> >>>>>>>>>> that extended the full length of the barrel, certainly as ling
> >>>>>>>>>> as I've
> >>>>>>>>>> been around. And, as I have repeatedly mentioned 30 round
> >>>>>>>>>> magazines
> >>>>>>>>>> have been available for the German Luger, since WW I days.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Lets see... Red Dot sights. That is a subject abut which I
> >>>>>>>>>> have no
> >>>>>>>>>> personal knowledge but optical sights, in general were first made
> >>>>>>>>>> because it allowed the shooter to see better and thus aim more
> >>>>>>>>>> accurately then with the so called "iron sights".
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> But more to the point.
> >>>>>>>>>> Why this irrational terror regarding modern firearms? After
> >>>>>>>>>> all you
> >>>>>>>>>> are, statistically, in twice as much danger from a Black man with
> >>>>>>>>>> his fist clenched then you are from the terrifying AR type of
> >>>>>>>>>> firearm.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> John, you carefully avoided answering each question.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Based on that, I assume not one of the features I asked about
> >>>>>>>>> was on
> >>>>>>>>> your hunting guns.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Which is not surprising. Those features, common on ARs, are
> >>>>>>>>> rarely worth
> >>>>>>>>> having on a gun used for hunting. Their value is for combat
> >>>>>>>>> situations.
> >>>>>>>>> Or for pretending to be in a combat situation.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Yes, you did state "hunting rifles" and I replied to you giving you
> >>>>>>>> the technically answers to your questions - with the exception
> >>>>>>>> of the
> >>>>>>>> red dot things which I'm not familiar with.
> >>>>>>> You replied by assiduously evading my direct questions about your
> >>>>>>> specific guns. Can't you be man enough to own up to it?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not to take John's side or your side in this rousing argument. But
> >>>>>> I do not think wise, intelligent, thinking people talk about their
> >>>>>> own personal guns in public. That is something only done by
> >>>>>> YouTube idiots and other senseless braggarts. There are some
> >>>>>> things, like your social security number, or your favorite sex
> >>>>>> positions, that should not be talked about in public. Detailed gun
> >>>>>> ownership is one of them.
> >>>>> Well, I wouldn't exactly say that. It is quite common for, target
> >>>>> shooters, for example to extol the advantages or bemoan the decencies
> >>>>> of the gun that they are using.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes in certain situations, a person can and does brag about his
> >>>> equipment. As you state, sharp shooting rifles with twelve different
> >>>> scopes and lenses on them and various adjustable weights hanging on
> >>>> them to counter balance the rotation of the earth and gravity. Used
> >>>> exclusively by target shooters in competitions. Or Revolutionary war
> >>>> or Daniel Boone recreators. They may wax eloquently about their
> >>>> flintlock rifle and authentic hand made black powder and hand cast
> >>>> lead bullets they fire out of their beloved rifles. But for the
> >>>> average, general public citizen, it is very unwise to publicly
> >>>> discuss and disclose the guns they own. And for your target
> >>>> shooters, they are carrying on their conversations exclusively with
> >>>> other target shooters.
> >>> Well, I'm not sure about the home made black powder. I've actually
> >>> made some and discovered why "grained" or "corned" gunpowder became so
> >>> popular (:-)
> >>>
> >>> But why ever not talk about guns? Or girls? Or how much whiskey you
> >>> drank at the party last Saturday night? All of which, I might note, I
> >>> have heard discussed in various groups.
> >>>
> >>> Or even bicycles, for that matter?
> >>> --
> >>> Cheers,
> >>>
> >>> John B.
> >>
> >> Unlike women, girls, whiskey, alcohol, or bicycles, guns are used to
> >> kill people. There is danger involved with the gun. Either for the
> >> gun owner or another party. A made up scenario to illustrate my
> >> point. A bad person is looking for a gun for a future crime. A gun
> >> registered or not registered to someone else. Not to the bad person.
> >> They hear someone talking about all the guns they own. The bad person
> >> says I will rob that person. And since I know he has guns, I will
> >> kill first, rob later. And I will be prepared with another gun to
> >> start, or with a knife ready to stab and slash first. Not a typical
> >> robbery. I am assuming in a typical robbery the criminal tries to
> >> make it as easy for themselves as possible. They watch a potential
> >> target and time it so no one is home or at the store. Then they break
> >> in and steal stuff. Easier to break in if no one is there. Easier to
> >> steal if no one is there to stop you. Easier to get away if no one is
> >> there to stop you. Criminals
> > are not all stupid. They think about how to do the crime.
> >
> > That scenario is common:
> > https://ktla.com/news/police-homeowner-shoots-kills-intruder-in-fontana/
> Correct! It's pretty common for burglars to break into houses known to
> have guns. Guns are more expensive, more compact and easier to sell
> than, say, your big screen TV.
>
> From https://www.nber.org/papers/w8926
>
> " Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative
> burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new
> empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent
> effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes
> that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun
> prevalence."
>
> Also see
> https://www.americanprogress.org/article/gun-theft-united-states-state-state-analysis/
>
> What's far less common? Using a gun to stop a burglary.
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 10:29:00 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Correct! It's pretty common for burglars to break into houses known to
> have guns. Guns are more expensive, more compact and easier to sell
> than, say, your big screen TV.
>
> From https://www.nber.org/papers/w8926
>

I've often wondered what the point of house robbery is. What are the crooks hoping to find? Big TV it takes four guys and a truck to carry out? And can only be sold for $50 if lucky. Watches? Does anyone wear expensive watches anymore? Apple watches and FitBit of those exercise watches would be worth something. But people wear those so they are not at home to steal. Computers? Laptops yes. Desktop computers, no way. But even with laptops, they are likely out of date and old and filled with viruses so good luck selling them. Jewelry? Maybe some women have expensive jewelry at home. Stereos, ha ha ho ho. People listen to music on their phone now days. Cash, wallets, purses, credit cards. On the person, not at home. There just does not seem to be too much to steal in a person's house that make it worthwhile. Its more work to steal and fence the stolen goods than money to be gained.

And as Frank says, guns would be easy to fence for a high dollar and quick to turn into cash. And easy to steal since they are small.

> " Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative
> burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new
> empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent
> effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes
> that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun
> prevalence."
>
> Also see
> https://www.americanprogress.org/article/gun-theft-united-states-state-state-analysis/
>
> What's far less common? Using a gun to stop a burglary.

I'm sure Fox News reported last month some granny in the mountains of Montana used her pistol gun to shoot the home invaders trying to get out of the snow and ice after getting drunk on their hunting excursion.

>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

On 3/7/2022 2:31 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 10:29:00 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 3/7/2022 9:11 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 3/6/2022 9:21 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 5:25:57 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 14:28:46 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 10:09:32 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 17:17:01 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 11:54:38 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2022 8:43 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 20:02:22 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2022 7:03 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 12:58:50 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 9:47 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 20:48:51 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 8:29 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 12:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Assault rifles" as in commonly used language - rifles with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple design features originally and purposely included
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for effectiveness in assault or other combat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, some people prefer to restrict the definition to those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guns having built in full auto capability. Some do not use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that restriction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If accessories are readily available to allow emptying a 30
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> round magazine in much less than ten seconds, I think the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restricted definition is worthless. That capability is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intended for combat or assault.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The thing is that nearly all "improvements" in firearm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intended to make them a more effective combat weapon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John, IIRC you've said you used to hunt. I assume you used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a shotgun or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a rifle, as is typical with most hunters.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Care to tell us what models, and what design features it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had that made
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it a "more effective combat weapon," as opposed to a better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hunting weapon?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, tell me what a "better hunting weapon" is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But your argue is ridiculous at best. I say that nearly all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improvements were intended to make then more effective
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> combat weapons"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you start talking about hunting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My first rifle was a ,22 single shot bolt action Winchester
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rifle. the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first single shot bolt action rifle was developed by von
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dreyse and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used by the army of Prussia in 1841.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In later years I built "varmint rifles" based on the "short
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mauser"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actions - all surplus from some army or another, a bolt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> action, action
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a magazine, developed by Peter Paul and Wilhelm Mauser and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepted by the Prussian government on 2 December 1871.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I could go on but why bother as just about any firearm you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can mention
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is, or has been, used by the military or law enforcement and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exception of the early "Elephant Rifles" I can think of no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "guns"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developed solely for hunting,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tell us more about your hunting rifles. Did they have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> shorter barrel
>>>>>>>>>>>>> length, like an AR, or longer barrel length like most other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rifles?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Barrels as short as 15 inches are great for street warfare.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most hunters
>>>>>>>>>>>>> want something well over 20 inches.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did your hunting rifles have pistol grips? They're very handy
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if you've
>>>>>>>>>>>>> got to jump and dodge around to avoid real or pretend enemy
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fire. Did
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the squirrels and woodchucks fire back at you, making that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> grip necessary?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How big was the magazine, and how fast was the action on your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hunting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rifle? Could you empty a 30 round magazine into a rabbit in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> less than
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ten seconds? And hey, could you fit a drum magazine in case
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 30 rounds
>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't take down that rabbit?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you use a "red dot" sight? You can get on target SO much
>>>>>>>>>>>>> faster,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is handy if the deer you're after is also shooting back
>>>>>>>>>>>>> at you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I could go on, but I'd appreciate answers to those questions
>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> evasions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You know Frank, I believe that you have really "gone right
>>>>>>>>>>>> round the
>>>>>>>>>>>> bend" as they used to say. A 15" barrel is great for street
>>>>>>>>>>>> fighting?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But o.k. Barrel lengths:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Barrel length, from a technical view point, is based on two
>>>>>>>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) the necessary length to allow for burning the majority of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> powder charge.
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the reason that slow burning black powder weapons had
>>>>>>>>>>>> a much
>>>>>>>>>>>> long barrel then is necessary for modern fast burning
>>>>>>>>>>>> smokeless powder
>>>>>>>>>>>> weapons. And:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) to provide, with "iron sights", the necessary length
>>>>>>>>>>>> between the
>>>>>>>>>>>> front and rear sight to produce accuracy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh yes, I forget, with a military weapon a longer barrel was
>>>>>>>>>>>> thought
>>>>>>>>>>>> to make a better weapon when the bayonet was attached as in
>>>>>>>>>>>> years gone
>>>>>>>>>>>> by the basic Infantry tactic was to march, in formation, up to,
>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps 50 yards, or even closer, to the enemy. Present the
>>>>>>>>>>>> musket,
>>>>>>>>>>>> fire, and charge with the bayonet.
>>>>>>>>>>>> This was highly successful in wars from about 1420 until the
>>>>>>>>>>>> invention
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the Minne Bullet, in the mid 1800's.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Next question, big magazines... Well, rifles and pistols have had
>>>>>>>>>>>> "large" magazines for years and years. .22 rifles have had
>>>>>>>>>>>> magazines
>>>>>>>>>>>> that extended the full length of the barrel, certainly as ling
>>>>>>>>>>>> as I've
>>>>>>>>>>>> been around. And, as I have repeatedly mentioned 30 round
>>>>>>>>>>>> magazines
>>>>>>>>>>>> have been available for the German Luger, since WW I days.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Lets see... Red Dot sights. That is a subject abut which I
>>>>>>>>>>>> have no
>>>>>>>>>>>> personal knowledge but optical sights, in general were first made
>>>>>>>>>>>> because it allowed the shooter to see better and thus aim more
>>>>>>>>>>>> accurately then with the so called "iron sights".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But more to the point.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why this irrational terror regarding modern firearms? After
>>>>>>>>>>>> all you
>>>>>>>>>>>> are, statistically, in twice as much danger from a Black man with
>>>>>>>>>>>> his fist clenched then you are from the terrifying AR type of
>>>>>>>>>>>> firearm.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> John, you carefully avoided answering each question.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Based on that, I assume not one of the features I asked about
>>>>>>>>>>> was on
>>>>>>>>>>> your hunting guns.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which is not surprising. Those features, common on ARs, are
>>>>>>>>>>> rarely worth
>>>>>>>>>>> having on a gun used for hunting. Their value is for combat
>>>>>>>>>>> situations.
>>>>>>>>>>> Or for pretending to be in a combat situation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you did state "hunting rifles" and I replied to you giving you
>>>>>>>>>> the technically answers to your questions - with the exception
>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>> red dot things which I'm not familiar with.
>>>>>>>>> You replied by assiduously evading my direct questions about your
>>>>>>>>> specific guns. Can't you be man enough to own up to it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not to take John's side or your side in this rousing argument. But
>>>>>>>> I do not think wise, intelligent, thinking people talk about their
>>>>>>>> own personal guns in public. That is something only done by
>>>>>>>> YouTube idiots and other senseless braggarts. There are some
>>>>>>>> things, like your social security number, or your favorite sex
>>>>>>>> positions, that should not be talked about in public. Detailed gun
>>>>>>>> ownership is one of them.
>>>>>>> Well, I wouldn't exactly say that. It is quite common for, target
>>>>>>> shooters, for example to extol the advantages or bemoan the decencies
>>>>>>> of the gun that they are using.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes in certain situations, a person can and does brag about his
>>>>>> equipment. As you state, sharp shooting rifles with twelve different
>>>>>> scopes and lenses on them and various adjustable weights hanging on
>>>>>> them to counter balance the rotation of the earth and gravity. Used
>>>>>> exclusively by target shooters in competitions. Or Revolutionary war
>>>>>> or Daniel Boone recreators. They may wax eloquently about their
>>>>>> flintlock rifle and authentic hand made black powder and hand cast
>>>>>> lead bullets they fire out of their beloved rifles. But for the
>>>>>> average, general public citizen, it is very unwise to publicly
>>>>>> discuss and disclose the guns they own. And for your target
>>>>>> shooters, they are carrying on their conversations exclusively with
>>>>>> other target shooters.
>>>>> Well, I'm not sure about the home made black powder. I've actually
>>>>> made some and discovered why "grained" or "corned" gunpowder became so
>>>>> popular (:-)
>>>>>
>>>>> But why ever not talk about guns? Or girls? Or how much whiskey you
>>>>> drank at the party last Saturday night? All of which, I might note, I
>>>>> have heard discussed in various groups.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or even bicycles, for that matter?
>>>>> --
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> John B.
>>>>
>>>> Unlike women, girls, whiskey, alcohol, or bicycles, guns are used to
>>>> kill people. There is danger involved with the gun. Either for the
>>>> gun owner or another party. A made up scenario to illustrate my
>>>> point. A bad person is looking for a gun for a future crime. A gun
>>>> registered or not registered to someone else. Not to the bad person.
>>>> They hear someone talking about all the guns they own. The bad person
>>>> says I will rob that person. And since I know he has guns, I will
>>>> kill first, rob later. And I will be prepared with another gun to
>>>> start, or with a knife ready to stab and slash first. Not a typical
>>>> robbery. I am assuming in a typical robbery the criminal tries to
>>>> make it as easy for themselves as possible. They watch a potential
>>>> target and time it so no one is home or at the store. Then they break
>>>> in and steal stuff. Easier to break in if no one is there. Easier to
>>>> steal if no one is there to stop you. Easier to get away if no one is
>>>> there to stop you. Criminals
>>> are not all stupid. They think about how to do the crime.
>>>
>>> That scenario is common:
>>> https://ktla.com/news/police-homeowner-shoots-kills-intruder-in-fontana/
>> Correct! It's pretty common for burglars to break into houses known to
>> have guns. Guns are more expensive, more compact and easier to sell
>> than, say, your big screen TV.
>>
>> From https://www.nber.org/papers/w8926
>>
>> " Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative
>> burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new
>> empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent
>> effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes
>> that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun
>> prevalence."
>>
>> Also see
>> https://www.americanprogress.org/article/gun-theft-united-states-state-state-analysis/
>>
>> What's far less common? Using a gun to stop a burglary.
>>
>> --
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
>
> https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/homicide_mortality/homicide.htm
> This is a fun website. I say this with irony. CDC website showing the homicides in the USA. You can select 2020 or 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, and 2005. Not sure why they chose to add in 2005. I selected 2020, most recent year available. Does not have 2021 data yet. The table below the map picture has the states and murder rate per 100k and total murders. Obviously, more murders in more populous states. No matter what the rate is.
>
> An interesting picture develops when you look at the top homicide states. Mostly, not all, but mostly Republican with pro yes great guns laws. Top murder states in USA are Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Missouri, Arkansas. All 100% Republican and PRO GUNS. I'm pretty sure in Missouri the Republican legislature and Governor voted to commend and honor and give merit citations to the couple in St. Louis who pulled AR-15 guns on the BLM protesters.
>
> Illinois, Andy's nemesis state, has 11.2 murder rate. Bad of course. Maryland 11.4, Tennessee 11.5, South Carolina 12.7. Yet everyone thinks Chicago is the murder capital of the world. Why is that? Despite these other states being more murder states. And of course the ones I listed in the above paragraph are the top most murder states.
>
> California 6.1. Texas 7.6, Florida 7.8. ANTI gun California. PRO gun Texas and Florida. Yet there were more murders in the pro gun states. I thought everyone carrying guns on their hips would reduce the gun murders? But it didn't?
>

On 3/7/2022 3:00 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 10:29:00 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> Correct! It's pretty common for burglars to break into houses known to
>> have guns. Guns are more expensive, more compact and easier to sell
>> than, say, your big screen TV.
>>
>> From https://www.nber.org/papers/w8926
>>
>
> I've often wondered what the point of house robbery is. What are the crooks hoping to find? Big TV it takes four guys and a truck to carry out? And can only be sold for $50 if lucky. Watches? Does anyone wear expensive watches anymore? Apple watches and FitBit of those exercise watches would be worth something. But people wear those so they are not at home to steal. Computers? Laptops yes. Desktop computers, no way. But even with laptops, they are likely out of date and old and filled with viruses so good luck selling them. Jewelry? Maybe some women have expensive jewelry at home. Stereos, ha ha ho ho. People listen to music on their phone now days. Cash, wallets, purses, credit cards. On the person, not at home. There just does not seem to be too much to steal in a person's house that make it worthwhile. Its more work to steal and fence the stolen goods than money to be gained.
>
> And as Frank says, guns would be easy to fence for a high dollar and quick to turn into cash. And easy to steal since they are small.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> " Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative
>> burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new
>> empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent
>> effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes
>> that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun
>> prevalence."
>>
>> Also see
>> https://www.americanprogress.org/article/gun-theft-united-states-state-state-analysis/
>>
>> What's far less common? Using a gun to stop a burglary.
>
> I'm sure Fox News reported last month some granny in the mountains of Montana used her pistol gun to shoot the home invaders trying to get out of the snow and ice after getting drunk on their hunting excursion.
>
>
>>
>> --
>> - Frank Krygowski

As an observer of daily crime reports, popular items are
cash, jewelry, watches, telephones, keys to the car in the
garage, the car, to some lesser extent power tools, laptops,
firearms.

Translation, 'Things one might carry easily and bring a
quick $10'.

https://abc7chicago.com/archive/8686555/

Then there are the 'WTF' lists:
https://abc7chicago.com/oak-street-robbery-bentley-stolen-items-recovered-chicago-sting/336045/

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

On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 11:17:12 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 3/6/2022 10:52 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 19:21:13 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Unlike women, girls, whiskey, alcohol, or bicycles, guns are used to kill people. ...
>>
>> Yup... and knives are used in mass killings...
>
>Numbers, please? Will you tell us the body count for "mass killings" by
>knife wielders in the U.S., compared to those perpetrated by those
>shooting guns?
>
>Feel free to give your own definition of a "mass killing," but one
>accepted definition (U.S. Dept. of Justice) is killing three or more
>people in close proximity and within a short time period.
>
>Compare with these:
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

Well,

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/mass-murder-without-guns/
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/another-california-mass-murder-knife-rampage-kills-4-wounds-2/

And, of course you will now leap into the fray and argue that "Oh my
goodness, but guns have killed more then knives"...

And I will cheerfully point out that bicycles have killed more then
mass shootings. Some 52,903 over the period 1946 - 2018 while guns, in
mass shootings, killed only 512 from 1949 - 2021.

Based on those figures it appears that bicycles are, what? 103.3 times
more deadly then those terribly scary guns.

In fact Frank, hands and feet kill more people then mass shootings.
More in one year then the 512 killed by mass shootings in 72 years.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 4:58:25 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 11:17:12 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >On 3/6/2022 10:52 PM, John B. wrote:
> >> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 19:21:13 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Unlike women, girls, whiskey, alcohol, or bicycles, guns are used to kill people. ...
> >>
> >> Yup... and knives are used in mass killings...
> >
> >Numbers, please? Will you tell us the body count for "mass killings" by
> >knife wielders in the U.S., compared to those perpetrated by those
> >shooting guns?
> >
> >Feel free to give your own definition of a "mass killing," but one
> >accepted definition (U.S. Dept. of Justice) is killing three or more
> >people in close proximity and within a short time period.
> >
> >Compare with these:
> >
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
> Well,
>
> https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/mass-murder-without-guns/
> https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/another-california-mass-murder-knife-rampage-kills-4-wounds-2/
>

Regarding your second link, the knife, machete killer of 4 people in southern California. He killed these people at a half dozen or so different locations over several hours. Not your typical mass killing to be sure. He also drove a silver Mercedes. This occurred a day or so after an El Paso Texas gunman killed 22 at a WalMart. With guns. And a killer in Dayton Ohio shot to death 9 people before police shot him to death.

Lets do some math after the fact. 4 dead from the machete knife. 22 + 9 dead from guns. 675% more deaths from guns than machete. 27 extra deaths from the guns. I suspect the 27 extra dead in Texas and Ohio wished the killer had a knife or machete than a gun. They might be alive. But are dead since a gun was used. Not a knife. Now for the 4 killed with the machete, they would be dead whether a gun or machete was used. But how many extra dead would there be if the machete killer used a gun instead? It is slightly odd since the machete killer was carrying a gun. But chose to kill with a machete instead of the gun.

Will eliminating guns stop murders? No. Will eliminating guns stop mass murders? No. I am fairly certain the devoted mass murderer will figure out an ingenious way to kill people even without a gun. But it will make murder and mass murders more difficult. Make the killers work more and really earn it. Hard work makes America great I have been told.

> And, of course you will now leap into the fray and argue that "Oh my
> goodness, but guns have killed more then knives"...
>
> And I will cheerfully point out that bicycles have killed more then
> mass shootings. Some 52,903 over the period 1946 - 2018 while guns, in
> mass shootings, killed only 512 from 1949 - 2021.
>
> Based on those figures it appears that bicycles are, what? 103.3 times
> more deadly then those terribly scary guns.
>
> In fact Frank, hands and feet kill more people then mass shootings.
> More in one year then the 512 killed by mass shootings in 72 years.
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 13:00:04 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 10:29:00 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> Correct! It's pretty common for burglars to break into houses known to
>> have guns. Guns are more expensive, more compact and easier to sell
>> than, say, your big screen TV.
>>
>> From https://www.nber.org/papers/w8926
>>
>
>I've often wondered what the point of house robbery is. What are the crooks hoping to find? Big TV it takes four guys and a truck to carry out? And can only be sold for $50 if lucky. Watches? Does anyone wear expensive watches anymore? Apple watches and FitBit of those exercise watches would be worth something. But people wear those so they are not at home to steal. Computers? Laptops yes. Desktop computers, no way. But even with laptops, they are likely out of date and old and filled with viruses so good luck selling them. Jewelry? Maybe some women have expensive jewelry at home. Stereos, ha ha ho ho. People listen to music on their phone now days. Cash, wallets, purses, credit cards. On the person, not at home. There just does not seem to be too much to steal in a person's house that make it worthwhile. Its more work to steal and fence the stolen goods than money to be gained.
>
>And as Frank says, guns would be easy to fence for a high dollar and quick to turn into cash. And easy to steal since they are small.
>
https://popcenter.asu.edu/content/home-invasion-robbery-0
A study, a bit ambiguous I thought, but pretty well covers a number of
home invasions, thefts, etc.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 07 Mar 2022 16:16:22 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 3/7/2022 3:00 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 10:29:00 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> Correct! It's pretty common for burglars to break into houses known to
>>> have guns. Guns are more expensive, more compact and easier to sell
>>> than, say, your big screen TV.
>>>
>>> From https://www.nber.org/papers/w8926
>>>
>>
>> I've often wondered what the point of house robbery is. What are the crooks hoping to find? Big TV it takes four guys and a truck to carry out? And can only be sold for $50 if lucky. Watches? Does anyone wear expensive watches anymore? Apple watches and FitBit of those exercise watches would be worth something. But people wear those so they are not at home to steal. Computers? Laptops yes. Desktop computers, no way. But even with laptops, they are likely out of date and old and filled with viruses so good luck selling them. Jewelry? Maybe some women have expensive jewelry at home. Stereos, ha ha ho ho. People listen to music on their phone now days. Cash, wallets, purses, credit cards. On the person, not at home. There just does not seem to be too much to steal in a person's house that make it worthwhile. Its more work to steal and fence the stolen goods than money to be gained.
>>
>> And as Frank says, guns would be easy to fence for a high dollar and quick to turn into cash. And easy to steal since they are small.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> " Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative
>>> burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new
>>> empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent
>>> effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes
>>> that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun
>>> prevalence."
>>>
>>> Also see
>>> https://www.americanprogress.org/article/gun-theft-united-states-state-state-analysis/
>>>
>>> What's far less common? Using a gun to stop a burglary.
>>
>> I'm sure Fox News reported last month some granny in the mountains of Montana used her pistol gun to shoot the home invaders trying to get out of the snow and ice after getting drunk on their hunting excursion.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>
>As an observer of daily crime reports, popular items are
>cash, jewelry, watches, telephones, keys to the car in the
>garage, the car, to some lesser extent power tools, laptops,
>firearms.
>
>Translation, 'Things one might carry easily and bring a
>quick $10'.
>
>https://abc7chicago.com/archive/8686555/
>
>Then there are the 'WTF' lists:
>https://abc7chicago.com/oak-street-robbery-bentley-stolen-items-recovered-chicago-sting/336045/

Years ago I was introduced to a real live professional car thief. This
would be back in the late 1950's or early 1960's, I guess, and after I
had been introduced and vouched for as a "good guy" he was quite open
about his trade. He's standard working day was two cars and he
preferred Chevy Corvettes as, he said, they were the biggest bang for
the buck.

He was a bit reticent about the "wholesaler" other then to say it was
cash on delivery, $200 for normal cars and $225 for Corvettes.

I did ask him "but if you get caught then you go to jail" and he told
me that according to his observations you would have to be arrested
and tried three times before there was any real chance of jail.

While I never met any I always assumed that as there were professional
car thieves that there were probably professional bicycle thieves,
professional gun thieves, professional TV thieves, and so on. Isn't
that the American Way? Specialize?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 07 Mar 2022 08:11:39 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 3/6/2022 9:21 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 5:25:57 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 14:28:46 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 10:09:32 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 17:17:01 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 11:54:38 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/4/2022 8:43 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 20:02:22 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2022 7:03 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 12:58:50 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 9:47 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 20:48:51 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 8:29 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 12:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Assault rifles" as in commonly used language - rifles with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple design features originally and purposely included
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for effectiveness in assault or other combat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, some people prefer to restrict the definition to those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guns having built in full auto capability. Some do not use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that restriction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If accessories are readily available to allow emptying a 30
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> round magazine in much less than ten seconds, I think the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restricted definition is worthless. That capability is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intended for combat or assault.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The thing is that nearly all "improvements" in firearm design was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intended to make them a more effective combat weapon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> John, IIRC you've said you used to hunt. I assume you used a shotgun or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a rifle, as is typical with most hunters.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Care to tell us what models, and what design features it had that made
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it a "more effective combat weapon," as opposed to a better hunting weapon?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, tell me what a "better hunting weapon" is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But your argue is ridiculous at best. I say that nearly all
>>>>>>>>>>>> improvements were intended to make then more effective combat weapons"
>>>>>>>>>>>> and you start talking about hunting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> My first rifle was a ,22 single shot bolt action Winchester rifle. the
>>>>>>>>>>>> first single shot bolt action rifle was developed by von Dreyse and
>>>>>>>>>>>> used by the army of Prussia in 1841.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In later years I built "varmint rifles" based on the "short mauser"
>>>>>>>>>>>> actions - all surplus from some army or another, a bolt action, action
>>>>>>>>>>>> with a magazine, developed by Peter Paul and Wilhelm Mauser and
>>>>>>>>>>>> accepted by the Prussian government on 2 December 1871.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I could go on but why bother as just about any firearm you can mention
>>>>>>>>>>>> is, or has been, used by the military or law enforcement and with the
>>>>>>>>>>>> exception of the early "Elephant Rifles" I can think of no "guns"
>>>>>>>>>>>> developed solely for hunting,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Tell us more about your hunting rifles. Did they have a shorter barrel
>>>>>>>>>>> length, like an AR, or longer barrel length like most other rifles?
>>>>>>>>>>> Barrels as short as 15 inches are great for street warfare. Most hunters
>>>>>>>>>>> want something well over 20 inches.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Did your hunting rifles have pistol grips? They're very handy if you've
>>>>>>>>>>> got to jump and dodge around to avoid real or pretend enemy fire. Did
>>>>>>>>>>> the squirrels and woodchucks fire back at you, making that grip necessary?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How big was the magazine, and how fast was the action on your hunting
>>>>>>>>>>> rifle? Could you empty a 30 round magazine into a rabbit in less than
>>>>>>>>>>> ten seconds? And hey, could you fit a drum magazine in case 30 rounds
>>>>>>>>>>> didn't take down that rabbit?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Did you use a "red dot" sight? You can get on target SO much faster,
>>>>>>>>>>> which is handy if the deer you're after is also shooting back at you.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I could go on, but I'd appreciate answers to those questions instead of
>>>>>>>>>>> evasions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You know Frank, I believe that you have really "gone right round the
>>>>>>>>>> bend" as they used to say. A 15" barrel is great for street fighting?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But o.k. Barrel lengths:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Barrel length, from a technical view point, is based on two things.
>>>>>>>>>> (1) the necessary length to allow for burning the majority of the
>>>>>>>>>> powder charge.
>>>>>>>>>> This is the reason that slow burning black powder weapons had a much
>>>>>>>>>> long barrel then is necessary for modern fast burning smokeless powder
>>>>>>>>>> weapons. And:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (2) to provide, with "iron sights", the necessary length between the
>>>>>>>>>> front and rear sight to produce accuracy.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Oh yes, I forget, with a military weapon a longer barrel was thought
>>>>>>>>>> to make a better weapon when the bayonet was attached as in years gone
>>>>>>>>>> by the basic Infantry tactic was to march, in formation, up to,
>>>>>>>>>> perhaps 50 yards, or even closer, to the enemy. Present the musket,
>>>>>>>>>> fire, and charge with the bayonet.
>>>>>>>>>> This was highly successful in wars from about 1420 until the invention
>>>>>>>>>> of the Minne Bullet, in the mid 1800's.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Next question, big magazines... Well, rifles and pistols have had
>>>>>>>>>> "large" magazines for years and years. .22 rifles have had magazines
>>>>>>>>>> that extended the full length of the barrel, certainly as ling as I've
>>>>>>>>>> been around. And, as I have repeatedly mentioned 30 round magazines
>>>>>>>>>> have been available for the German Luger, since WW I days.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Lets see... Red Dot sights. That is a subject abut which I have no
>>>>>>>>>> personal knowledge but optical sights, in general were first made
>>>>>>>>>> because it allowed the shooter to see better and thus aim more
>>>>>>>>>> accurately then with the so called "iron sights".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But more to the point.
>>>>>>>>>> Why this irrational terror regarding modern firearms? After all you
>>>>>>>>>> are, statistically, in twice as much danger from a Black man with
>>>>>>>>>> his fist clenched then you are from the terrifying AR type of firearm.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> John, you carefully avoided answering each question.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Based on that, I assume not one of the features I asked about was on
>>>>>>>>> your hunting guns.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which is not surprising. Those features, common on ARs, are rarely worth
>>>>>>>>> having on a gun used for hunting. Their value is for combat situations.
>>>>>>>>> Or for pretending to be in a combat situation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, you did state "hunting rifles" and I replied to you giving you
>>>>>>>> the technically answers to your questions - with the exception of the
>>>>>>>> red dot things which I'm not familiar with.
>>>>>>> You replied by assiduously evading my direct questions about your
>>>>>>> specific guns. Can't you be man enough to own up to it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not to take John's side or your side in this rousing argument. But I do not think wise, intelligent, thinking people talk about their own personal guns in public. That is something only done by YouTube idiots and other senseless braggarts. There are some things, like your social security number, or your favorite sex positions, that should not be talked about in public. Detailed gun ownership is one of them.
>>>>> Well, I wouldn't exactly say that. It is quite common for, target
>>>>> shooters, for example to extol the advantages or bemoan the decencies
>>>>> of the gun that they are using.
>>>>
>>>> Yes in certain situations, a person can and does brag about his equipment. As you state, sharp shooting rifles with twelve different scopes and lenses on them and various adjustable weights hanging on them to counter balance the rotation of the earth and gravity. Used exclusively by target shooters in competitions. Or Revolutionary war or Daniel Boone recreators. They may wax eloquently about their flintlock rifle and authentic hand made black powder and hand cast lead bullets they fire out of their beloved rifles. But for the average, general public citizen, it is very unwise to publicly discuss and disclose the guns they own. And for your target shooters, they are carrying on their conversations exclusively with other target shooters.
>>> Well, I'm not sure about the home made black powder. I've actually
>>> made some and discovered why "grained" or "corned" gunpowder became so
>>> popular (:-)
>>>
>>> But why ever not talk about guns? Or girls? Or how much whiskey you
>>> drank at the party last Saturday night? All of which, I might note, I
>>> have heard discussed in various groups.
>>>
>>> Or even bicycles, for that matter?
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> John B.
>>
>> Unlike women, girls, whiskey, alcohol, or bicycles, guns are used to kill people. There is danger involved with the gun. Either for the gun owner or another party. A made up scenario to illustrate my point. A bad person is looking for a gun for a future crime. A gun registered or not registered to someone else. Not to the bad person. They hear someone talking about all the guns they own. The bad person says I will rob that person. And since I know he has guns, I will kill first, rob later. And I will be prepared with another gun to start, or with a knife ready to stab and slash first. Not a typical robbery. I am assuming in a typical robbery the criminal tries to make it as easy for themselves as possible. They watch a potential target and time it so no one is home or at the store. Then they break in and steal stuff. Easier to break in if no one is there. Easier to steal if no one is there to stop you. Easier to get away if no one is there to stop you. Criminals
>are not all stupid. They think about how to do the crime.
>>
>
>
>That scenario is common:
>https://ktla.com/news/police-homeowner-shoots-kills-intruder-in-fontana/

On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 2:58:25 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 11:17:12 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >On 3/6/2022 10:52 PM, John B. wrote:
> >> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 19:21:13 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Unlike women, girls, whiskey, alcohol, or bicycles, guns are used to kill people. ...
> >>
> >> Yup... and knives are used in mass killings...
> >
> >Numbers, please? Will you tell us the body count for "mass killings" by
> >knife wielders in the U.S., compared to those perpetrated by those
> >shooting guns?
> >
> >Feel free to give your own definition of a "mass killing," but one
> >accepted definition (U.S. Dept. of Justice) is killing three or more
> >people in close proximity and within a short time period.
> >
> >Compare with these:
> >
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
> Well,
>
> https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/mass-murder-without-guns/
> https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/another-california-mass-murder-knife-rampage-kills-4-wounds-2/
>
> And, of course you will now leap into the fray and argue that "Oh my
> goodness, but guns have killed more then knives"...
>
> And I will cheerfully point out that bicycles have killed more then
> mass shootings. Some 52,903 over the period 1946 - 2018 while guns, in
> mass shootings, killed only 512 from 1949 - 2021.
>
> Based on those figures it appears that bicycles are, what? 103.3 times
> more deadly then those terribly scary guns.
>
> In fact Frank, hands and feet kill more people then mass shootings.
> More in one year then the 512 killed by mass shootings in 72 years.

John, you're running out of ideas, to the point that you're ludicrously predictable.
I'm not surprised that you found _one_ account of a multiple killing with a knife. You,
like Andrew, repeatedly put up a single outlier case as pretense of a trend. And while
your first link discusses more non-gun mass killings, it has to go back decades
and into other countries to find enough anecdotes to fill a one-page article. Note
the total absence of comparative data!

And again, the issue of "benefits vs. detriments" seems beyond your intellectual
capacity - or, more honestly, your willingness to admit. There are bike deaths. There
are many, many more pedestrian deaths, and even more car deaths. Those are regrettable,
but people keep driving because the benefits of cars are obvious. You've so far
staunchly resisted listing the practical benefits of rapid fire, combat oriented guns
for civilians. It seems obvious you can't think of any legitimate benefits.

Benefits vs. detriments. By your "logic" we should stop piping water to people's homes
because some 4000 Americans drown each year.

- Frank Krygowski

On Mon, 07 Mar 2022 08:14:53 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 3/6/2022 9:52 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 19:21:13 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 5:25:57 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 14:28:46 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 10:09:32 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 17:17:01 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 11:54:38 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2022 8:43 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 20:02:22 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2022 7:03 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 12:58:50 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 9:47 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 20:48:51 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 8:29 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 12:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Assault rifles" as in commonly used language - rifles with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple design features originally and purposely included
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for effectiveness in assault or other combat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, some people prefer to restrict the definition to those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guns having built in full auto capability. Some do not use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that restriction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If accessories are readily available to allow emptying a 30
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> round magazine in much less than ten seconds, I think the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restricted definition is worthless. That capability is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intended for combat or assault.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The thing is that nearly all "improvements" in firearm design was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intended to make them a more effective combat weapon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John, IIRC you've said you used to hunt. I assume you used a shotgun or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a rifle, as is typical with most hunters.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Care to tell us what models, and what design features it had that made
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it a "more effective combat weapon," as opposed to a better hunting weapon?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, tell me what a "better hunting weapon" is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But your argue is ridiculous at best. I say that nearly all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> improvements were intended to make then more effective combat weapons"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you start talking about hunting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> My first rifle was a ,22 single shot bolt action Winchester rifle. the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> first single shot bolt action rifle was developed by von Dreyse and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> used by the army of Prussia in 1841.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In later years I built "varmint rifles" based on the "short mauser"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> actions - all surplus from some army or another, a bolt action, action
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a magazine, developed by Peter Paul and Wilhelm Mauser and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepted by the Prussian government on 2 December 1871.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I could go on but why bother as just about any firearm you can mention
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is, or has been, used by the military or law enforcement and with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> exception of the early "Elephant Rifles" I can think of no "guns"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> developed solely for hunting,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tell us more about your hunting rifles. Did they have a shorter barrel
>>>>>>>>>>>> length, like an AR, or longer barrel length like most other rifles?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Barrels as short as 15 inches are great for street warfare. Most hunters
>>>>>>>>>>>> want something well over 20 inches.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Did your hunting rifles have pistol grips? They're very handy if you've
>>>>>>>>>>>> got to jump and dodge around to avoid real or pretend enemy fire. Did
>>>>>>>>>>>> the squirrels and woodchucks fire back at you, making that grip necessary?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> How big was the magazine, and how fast was the action on your hunting
>>>>>>>>>>>> rifle? Could you empty a 30 round magazine into a rabbit in less than
>>>>>>>>>>>> ten seconds? And hey, could you fit a drum magazine in case 30 rounds
>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't take down that rabbit?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you use a "red dot" sight? You can get on target SO much faster,
>>>>>>>>>>>> which is handy if the deer you're after is also shooting back at you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I could go on, but I'd appreciate answers to those questions instead of
>>>>>>>>>>>> evasions.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You know Frank, I believe that you have really "gone right round the
>>>>>>>>>>> bend" as they used to say. A 15" barrel is great for street fighting?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But o.k. Barrel lengths:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Barrel length, from a technical view point, is based on two things.
>>>>>>>>>>> (1) the necessary length to allow for burning the majority of the
>>>>>>>>>>> powder charge.
>>>>>>>>>>> This is the reason that slow burning black powder weapons had a much
>>>>>>>>>>> long barrel then is necessary for modern fast burning smokeless powder
>>>>>>>>>>> weapons. And:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (2) to provide, with "iron sights", the necessary length between the
>>>>>>>>>>> front and rear sight to produce accuracy.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Oh yes, I forget, with a military weapon a longer barrel was thought
>>>>>>>>>>> to make a better weapon when the bayonet was attached as in years gone
>>>>>>>>>>> by the basic Infantry tactic was to march, in formation, up to,
>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps 50 yards, or even closer, to the enemy. Present the musket,
>>>>>>>>>>> fire, and charge with the bayonet.
>>>>>>>>>>> This was highly successful in wars from about 1420 until the invention
>>>>>>>>>>> of the Minne Bullet, in the mid 1800's.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Next question, big magazines... Well, rifles and pistols have had
>>>>>>>>>>> "large" magazines for years and years. .22 rifles have had magazines
>>>>>>>>>>> that extended the full length of the barrel, certainly as ling as I've
>>>>>>>>>>> been around. And, as I have repeatedly mentioned 30 round magazines
>>>>>>>>>>> have been available for the German Luger, since WW I days.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Lets see... Red Dot sights. That is a subject abut which I have no
>>>>>>>>>>> personal knowledge but optical sights, in general were first made
>>>>>>>>>>> because it allowed the shooter to see better and thus aim more
>>>>>>>>>>> accurately then with the so called "iron sights".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But more to the point.
>>>>>>>>>>> Why this irrational terror regarding modern firearms? After all you
>>>>>>>>>>> are, statistically, in twice as much danger from a Black man with
>>>>>>>>>>> his fist clenched then you are from the terrifying AR type of firearm.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> John, you carefully avoided answering each question.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Based on that, I assume not one of the features I asked about was on
>>>>>>>>>> your hunting guns.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which is not surprising. Those features, common on ARs, are rarely worth
>>>>>>>>>> having on a gun used for hunting. Their value is for combat situations.
>>>>>>>>>> Or for pretending to be in a combat situation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, you did state "hunting rifles" and I replied to you giving you
>>>>>>>>> the technically answers to your questions - with the exception of the
>>>>>>>>> red dot things which I'm not familiar with.
>>>>>>>> You replied by assiduously evading my direct questions about your
>>>>>>>> specific guns. Can't you be man enough to own up to it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not to take John's side or your side in this rousing argument. But I do not think wise, intelligent, thinking people talk about their own personal guns in public. That is something only done by YouTube idiots and other senseless braggarts. There are some things, like your social security number, or your favorite sex positions, that should not be talked about in public. Detailed gun ownership is one of them.
>>>>>> Well, I wouldn't exactly say that. It is quite common for, target
>>>>>> shooters, for example to extol the advantages or bemoan the decencies
>>>>>> of the gun that they are using.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes in certain situations, a person can and does brag about his equipment. As you state, sharp shooting rifles with twelve different scopes and lenses on them and various adjustable weights hanging on them to counter balance the rotation of the earth and gravity. Used exclusively by target shooters in competitions. Or Revolutionary war or Daniel Boone recreators. They may wax eloquently about their flintlock rifle and authentic hand made black powder and hand cast lead bullets they fire out of their beloved rifles. But for the average, general public citizen, it is very unwise to publicly discuss and disclose the guns they own. And for your target shooters, they are carrying on their conversations exclusively with other target shooters.
>>>> Well, I'm not sure about the home made black powder. I've actually
>>>> made some and discovered why "grained" or "corned" gunpowder became so
>>>> popular (:-)
>>>>
>>>> But why ever not talk about guns? Or girls? Or how much whiskey you
>>>> drank at the party last Saturday night? All of which, I might note, I
>>>> have heard discussed in various groups.
>>>>
>>>> Or even bicycles, for that matter?
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> John B.
>>>
>>> Unlike women, girls, whiskey, alcohol, or bicycles, guns are used to kill people. There is danger involved with the gun. Either for the gun owner or another party. A made up scenario to illustrate my point. A bad person is looking for a gun for a future crime. A gun registered or not registered to someone else. Not to the bad person. They hear someone talking about all the guns they own. The bad person says I will rob that person. And since I know he has guns, I will kill first, rob later. And I will be prepared with another gun to start, or with a knife ready to stab and slash first. Not a typical robbery. I am assuming in a typical robbery the criminal tries to make it as easy for themselves as possible. They watch a potential target and time it so no one is home or at the store. Then they break in and steal stuff. Easier to break in if no one is there. Easier to steal if no one is there to stop you. Easier to get away if no one is there to stop you. Criminal
>s
>> are
>>> not all stupid. They think about how to do the crime.
>>
>> Yup... and knives are used in mass killings, and fire, and even
>> baseball bats can kill. Or even hands and feet.
>>
>> And of course guns are stolen, and cars are stolen, and diamond rings
>> are stolen, and even goats and horses. Oh My Goodness and even wives,
>> to hear some tell it.
>>
>> Shoot, years ago kids in New York used to make their own guns - Zip
>> Guns they were called.
>>
>> I'm not denying your supposition but I doubt that it is a common
>> method of procuring a firearm solely for the purpose of committing a
>> felony.
>>
>> See
>> https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/32630640/5385318.pdf?sequence=1
>> For some details.
>>
>
>Stolen weapons used in crime are more common in areas where
>legal ownership is most restricted:
>https://cwbchicago.com/