On Mon, 30 May 2022 21:56:14 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 6:22:39 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 May 2022 11:24:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On 5/29/2022 11:52 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 29 May 2022 22:54:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On 5/29/2022 6:30 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >>>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 10:57:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> >>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On 5/28/2022 10:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> The only legal "assault rifles" to use the common term are restricted
>> >>>>>> to "semi automatic", i.e., they fire once every time you pull the
>> >>>>>> trigger. This system dates back to1895 in rifles and semi automatic
>> >>>>>> pistols seem to date back to the 1800's also. Short barrel, "carbine"
>> >>>>>> sort of thing. I can't find a specific date for first use but the term
>> >>>>>> seems to dates back to the 1600's. Pistol grip? The first I can find
>> >>>>>> is the Delvigne, patented in 1840. Large magazines.. The Henry Rifle,
>> >>>>>> patented in 1860 had a 15 round magazine.
>> >>>>> You should give a list of mass shootings in which the Henry rifle was
>> >>>>> the main weapon used. That would really buttress your argument, wouldn't
>> >>>>> it?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Conversely, failure to provide such a list would indicate how weak your
>> >>>>> points are.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Good on yuh Frank. A nice end run about my dissertation pointing out
>> >>>> that all your claims to modern rifles being, what was the word you
>> >>>> used? Optimized for man killing? When in fact every thing about them
>> >>>> is copied from weapons that have been available for a hundred years or
>> >>>> more.
>> >>>
>> >>> Show me a hundred year old rifle that weighs less than ten pounds and
>> >>> can fire four or five rounds in one second. And that can be easily
>> >>> fitted with a 50 round magazine. (While you're at it, explain why a
>> >>> non-military person needs such capability. What are the advantages?)
>> >>>
>> >> But Frank, you kept going on and on about optimized for killing. I was
>> >> simply demonstrating that WOW! Here is a gun optimized for killing way
>> >> back in 1903 and used for that purpose for 50 years or more. Don't
>> >> deaths before, well say 1989 when the first "assault rifle, an AK-47,
>> >> was used to kill civilians, count?
>> >
>> >Watch the Jim Jeffries videos again. The 1770's muskets were optimized
>> >for killing. If that design was what gun fetishists wanted today, we'd
>> >have far fewer problems and roughly zero mass murders. Technology makes
>> >a difference.
>> Frank, you are a fool.
>>
>> Yes the 1779's muskets were optimized for killing. Of course they
>> were. Or do you some how think that military weapons and tactics were
>> somehow foolish simply because they don't match modern fancies?
>>
>> A an example, in the earlier days smooth bore "muskets" were the
>> preferred infantry fire arm although the much more accurate "rifle"
>> was invented in 1498. Evidence of the suddenness of the military. Not
>> hardly. The musket could be loaded very quickly, four shots per
>> minute, while the rifle took at least twice as long and as a battle
>> progressed and the rifle became more and more "fouled" with powder
>> residue even longer to load.
>>
>> So Frank, you exhibit your lack of knowledge about firearms once
>> again.
>>
>> You go on and on about these terrible assault rifles that are
>> "optimized for killing. Don't you realize that all firearms, from the
>> very first "fire lance" developed in China more then 1000 years ago,
>> were designed for, and logically optimized for, killing people?
>
>No. Modern civilian rifles and shotguns are optimized for the game/target being shot. The biathalon rifle used by almost everyone is specifically optimized for skiing and shooting. Its 22 long rifle. Not much of a killer caliber. But they just shoot at metal disks. Shotguns are optimized for the birds being shot. And their choke is adjusted to fit how far away the targets will be when encountered. Small birds are OK with 410 or 28 gauge. Less powerful. But big birds such as pheasants will want a 12 gauge or at worst a 20 gauge. Skeet shooters shoot clay disks flying through the sky. Their over/under shotguns are 12 gauge and optimized for breaking the clay pigeons. And with hunting rifles, the bolt action is preferred by most. Accurate and can be made in all calibers on earth. Big caliber for shooting buffaloes or elephants in Africa. Smaller 22 or 30 calibers for deer in the US. And their are bigger cartridges for bigger game such as bear or moose. Optimized by
>caliber for the game being shot.

Sure, and a "trap gun" is optimized to shoot clay pigeons, and so on.
Which doesn't change the fact that, as an overall statement, that the
primary reason that firearms were "invented", "developed",
"optimized", "whatever", is to kill living creatures, whether they
walked on two legs or four. Or swam in the ocean.

>22 caliber rifle firearms are optimized for practice essentially. Plinking. Or for kids to learn how to shoot a firearm. I have a couple 22 rifles available to use. Shooting opossums or raccoons. Not killing people.

Maybe so, or maybe no.

I don't personally "know" this but I have read that a .22 pistol was
the weapon that the Isreally Secret Service used, most frequently,
during the Operation Wrath of God, assassination campaign carried out
to avenge the kidnapping and murder of 11 Israeli athletes at the
Munich Olympics. Specifically the Beretta Model 71.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 5/30/2022 11:56 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 6:22:39 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 May 2022 11:24:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/29/2022 11:52 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 22:54:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/29/2022 6:30 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 10:57:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/28/2022 10:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The only legal "assault rifles" to use the common term are restricted
>>>>>>>> to "semi automatic", i.e., they fire once every time you pull the
>>>>>>>> trigger. This system dates back to1895 in rifles and semi automatic
>>>>>>>> pistols seem to date back to the 1800's also. Short barrel, "carbine"
>>>>>>>> sort of thing. I can't find a specific date for first use but the term
>>>>>>>> seems to dates back to the 1600's. Pistol grip? The first I can find
>>>>>>>> is the Delvigne, patented in 1840. Large magazines.. The Henry Rifle,
>>>>>>>> patented in 1860 had a 15 round magazine.
>>>>>>> You should give a list of mass shootings in which the Henry rifle was
>>>>>>> the main weapon used. That would really buttress your argument, wouldn't
>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Conversely, failure to provide such a list would indicate how weak your
>>>>>>> points are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good on yuh Frank. A nice end run about my dissertation pointing out
>>>>>> that all your claims to modern rifles being, what was the word you
>>>>>> used? Optimized for man killing? When in fact every thing about them
>>>>>> is copied from weapons that have been available for a hundred years or
>>>>>> more.
>>>>>
>>>>> Show me a hundred year old rifle that weighs less than ten pounds and
>>>>> can fire four or five rounds in one second. And that can be easily
>>>>> fitted with a 50 round magazine. (While you're at it, explain why a
>>>>> non-military person needs such capability. What are the advantages?)
>>>>>
>>>> But Frank, you kept going on and on about optimized for killing. I was
>>>> simply demonstrating that WOW! Here is a gun optimized for killing way
>>>> back in 1903 and used for that purpose for 50 years or more. Don't
>>>> deaths before, well say 1989 when the first "assault rifle, an AK-47,
>>>> was used to kill civilians, count?
>>>
>>> Watch the Jim Jeffries videos again. The 1770's muskets were optimized
>>> for killing. If that design was what gun fetishists wanted today, we'd
>>> have far fewer problems and roughly zero mass murders. Technology makes
>>> a difference.
>> Frank, you are a fool.
>>
>> Yes the 1779's muskets were optimized for killing. Of course they
>> were. Or do you some how think that military weapons and tactics were
>> somehow foolish simply because they don't match modern fancies?
>>
>> A an example, in the earlier days smooth bore "muskets" were the
>> preferred infantry fire arm although the much more accurate "rifle"
>> was invented in 1498. Evidence of the suddenness of the military. Not
>> hardly. The musket could be loaded very quickly, four shots per
>> minute, while the rifle took at least twice as long and as a battle
>> progressed and the rifle became more and more "fouled" with powder
>> residue even longer to load.
>>
>> So Frank, you exhibit your lack of knowledge about firearms once
>> again.
>>
>> You go on and on about these terrible assault rifles that are
>> "optimized for killing. Don't you realize that all firearms, from the
>> very first "fire lance" developed in China more then 1000 years ago,
>> were designed for, and logically optimized for, killing people?
>
> No. Modern civilian rifles and shotguns are optimized for the game/target being shot. The biathalon rifle used by almost everyone is specifically optimized for skiing and shooting. Its 22 long rifle. Not much of a killer caliber. But they just shoot at metal disks. Shotguns are optimized for the birds being shot. And their choke is adjusted to fit how far away the targets will be when encountered. Small birds are OK with 410 or 28 gauge. Less powerful. But big birds such as pheasants will want a 12 gauge or at worst a 20 gauge. Skeet shooters shoot clay disks flying through the sky. Their over/under shotguns are 12 gauge and optimized for breaking the clay pigeons. And with hunting rifles, the bolt action is preferred by most. Accurate and can be made in all calibers on earth. Big caliber for shooting buffaloes or elephants in Africa. Smaller 22 or 30 calibers for deer in the US. And their are bigger cartridges for bigger game such as bear or moose. Optimized by
caliber for the game being shot.
>
> 22 caliber rifle firearms are optimized for practice essentially. Plinking. Or for kids to learn how to shoot a firearm. I have a couple 22 rifles available to use. Shooting opossums or raccoons. Not killing people.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> The fact is Frank that you really don't know anything at all about
>> firearms and are speaking from a position of overwhelming ignorance.
>> Your entire "claim to fame" in the gun question seems to be, "Oh yes,
>> I fired one, once".
>>
>> And yes, you don't like them, one might even, from your writing,
>> believe that you fear them, but, again from your writing, you
>> certainly don't have any real knowledge of them.
>>
>> So lets just leave it at that. You are ranting and raving about a
>> subject which you know, literally, nothing (yes, I know you shot one
>> once) about.
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.

I can't comment on 'intent' but for many years the #1 round
for wounds/deaths in USA was .22LR. And .22 rifles dominated
other long arms as a group. (I suspect mostly negligent as
people are less safety conscious with a 'mere' .22 but I
don't know that.)

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

On 5/31/2022 1:21 AM, John B. wrote:
> On Mon, 30 May 2022 21:56:14 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
> <ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 6:22:39 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 May 2022 11:24:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/29/2022 11:52 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 22:54:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/29/2022 6:30 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 10:57:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/28/2022 10:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The only legal "assault rifles" to use the common term are restricted
>>>>>>>>> to "semi automatic", i.e., they fire once every time you pull the
>>>>>>>>> trigger. This system dates back to1895 in rifles and semi automatic
>>>>>>>>> pistols seem to date back to the 1800's also. Short barrel, "carbine"
>>>>>>>>> sort of thing. I can't find a specific date for first use but the term
>>>>>>>>> seems to dates back to the 1600's. Pistol grip? The first I can find
>>>>>>>>> is the Delvigne, patented in 1840. Large magazines.. The Henry Rifle,
>>>>>>>>> patented in 1860 had a 15 round magazine.
>>>>>>>> You should give a list of mass shootings in which the Henry rifle was
>>>>>>>> the main weapon used. That would really buttress your argument, wouldn't
>>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Conversely, failure to provide such a list would indicate how weak your
>>>>>>>> points are.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good on yuh Frank. A nice end run about my dissertation pointing out
>>>>>>> that all your claims to modern rifles being, what was the word you
>>>>>>> used? Optimized for man killing? When in fact every thing about them
>>>>>>> is copied from weapons that have been available for a hundred years or
>>>>>>> more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Show me a hundred year old rifle that weighs less than ten pounds and
>>>>>> can fire four or five rounds in one second. And that can be easily
>>>>>> fitted with a 50 round magazine. (While you're at it, explain why a
>>>>>> non-military person needs such capability. What are the advantages?)
>>>>>>
>>>>> But Frank, you kept going on and on about optimized for killing. I was
>>>>> simply demonstrating that WOW! Here is a gun optimized for killing way
>>>>> back in 1903 and used for that purpose for 50 years or more. Don't
>>>>> deaths before, well say 1989 when the first "assault rifle, an AK-47,
>>>>> was used to kill civilians, count?
>>>>
>>>> Watch the Jim Jeffries videos again. The 1770's muskets were optimized
>>>> for killing. If that design was what gun fetishists wanted today, we'd
>>>> have far fewer problems and roughly zero mass murders. Technology makes
>>>> a difference.
>>> Frank, you are a fool.
>>>
>>> Yes the 1779's muskets were optimized for killing. Of course they
>>> were. Or do you some how think that military weapons and tactics were
>>> somehow foolish simply because they don't match modern fancies?
>>>
>>> A an example, in the earlier days smooth bore "muskets" were the
>>> preferred infantry fire arm although the much more accurate "rifle"
>>> was invented in 1498. Evidence of the suddenness of the military. Not
>>> hardly. The musket could be loaded very quickly, four shots per
>>> minute, while the rifle took at least twice as long and as a battle
>>> progressed and the rifle became more and more "fouled" with powder
>>> residue even longer to load.
>>>
>>> So Frank, you exhibit your lack of knowledge about firearms once
>>> again.
>>>
>>> You go on and on about these terrible assault rifles that are
>>> "optimized for killing. Don't you realize that all firearms, from the
>>> very first "fire lance" developed in China more then 1000 years ago,
>>> were designed for, and logically optimized for, killing people?
>>
>> No. Modern civilian rifles and shotguns are optimized for the game/target being shot. The biathalon rifle used by almost everyone is specifically optimized for skiing and shooting. Its 22 long rifle. Not much of a killer caliber. But they just shoot at metal disks. Shotguns are optimized for the birds being shot. And their choke is adjusted to fit how far away the targets will be when encountered. Small birds are OK with 410 or 28 gauge. Less powerful. But big birds such as pheasants will want a 12 gauge or at worst a 20 gauge. Skeet shooters shoot clay disks flying through the sky. Their over/under shotguns are 12 gauge and optimized for breaking the clay pigeons. And with hunting rifles, the bolt action is preferred by most. Accurate and can be made in all calibers on earth. Big caliber for shooting buffaloes or elephants in Africa. Smaller 22 or 30 calibers for deer in the US. And their are bigger cartridges for bigger game such as bear or moose. Optimized by
>> caliber for the game being shot.
>
> Sure, and a "trap gun" is optimized to shoot clay pigeons, and so on.
> Which doesn't change the fact that, as an overall statement, that the
> primary reason that firearms were "invented", "developed",
> "optimized", "whatever", is to kill living creatures, whether they
> walked on two legs or four. Or swam in the ocean.
But your claim was this, verbatim: "Don't you realize that ALL firearms,
from the very first "fire lance" developed in China more then 1000 years
ago, were designed for, and logically optimized for, killing people?" (I
added emphasis to "all" so you wouldn't misunderstand your own words.)
You'd look more respectable if you'd admit your mistakes and the
weaknesses in your arguments. Especially the blatantly obvious ones.
--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 5:48:36 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/30/2022 11:56 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 6:22:39 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> On Mon, 30 May 2022 11:24:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 5/29/2022 11:52 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 22:54:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 5/29/2022 6:30 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 10:57:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 5/28/2022 10:19 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The only legal "assault rifles" to use the common term are restricted
> >>>>>>>> to "semi automatic", i.e., they fire once every time you pull the
> >>>>>>>> trigger. This system dates back to1895 in rifles and semi automatic
> >>>>>>>> pistols seem to date back to the 1800's also. Short barrel, "carbine"
> >>>>>>>> sort of thing. I can't find a specific date for first use but the term
> >>>>>>>> seems to dates back to the 1600's. Pistol grip? The first I can find
> >>>>>>>> is the Delvigne, patented in 1840. Large magazines.. The Henry Rifle,
> >>>>>>>> patented in 1860 had a 15 round magazine.
> >>>>>>> You should give a list of mass shootings in which the Henry rifle was
> >>>>>>> the main weapon used. That would really buttress your argument, wouldn't
> >>>>>>> it?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Conversely, failure to provide such a list would indicate how weak your
> >>>>>>> points are.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Good on yuh Frank. A nice end run about my dissertation pointing out
> >>>>>> that all your claims to modern rifles being, what was the word you
> >>>>>> used? Optimized for man killing? When in fact every thing about them
> >>>>>> is copied from weapons that have been available for a hundred years or
> >>>>>> more.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Show me a hundred year old rifle that weighs less than ten pounds and
> >>>>> can fire four or five rounds in one second. And that can be easily
> >>>>> fitted with a 50 round magazine. (While you're at it, explain why a
> >>>>> non-military person needs such capability. What are the advantages?)
> >>>>>
> >>>> But Frank, you kept going on and on about optimized for killing. I was
> >>>> simply demonstrating that WOW! Here is a gun optimized for killing way
> >>>> back in 1903 and used for that purpose for 50 years or more. Don't
> >>>> deaths before, well say 1989 when the first "assault rifle, an AK-47,
> >>>> was used to kill civilians, count?
> >>>
> >>> Watch the Jim Jeffries videos again. The 1770's muskets were optimized
> >>> for killing. If that design was what gun fetishists wanted today, we'd
> >>> have far fewer problems and roughly zero mass murders. Technology makes
> >>> a difference.
> >> Frank, you are a fool.
> >>
> >> Yes the 1779's muskets were optimized for killing. Of course they
> >> were. Or do you some how think that military weapons and tactics were
> >> somehow foolish simply because they don't match modern fancies?
> >>
> >> A an example, in the earlier days smooth bore "muskets" were the
> >> preferred infantry fire arm although the much more accurate "rifle"
> >> was invented in 1498. Evidence of the suddenness of the military. Not
> >> hardly. The musket could be loaded very quickly, four shots per
> >> minute, while the rifle took at least twice as long and as a battle
> >> progressed and the rifle became more and more "fouled" with powder
> >> residue even longer to load.
> >>
> >> So Frank, you exhibit your lack of knowledge about firearms once
> >> again.
> >>
> >> You go on and on about these terrible assault rifles that are
> >> "optimized for killing. Don't you realize that all firearms, from the
> >> very first "fire lance" developed in China more then 1000 years ago,
> >> were designed for, and logically optimized for, killing people?
> >
> > No. Modern civilian rifles and shotguns are optimized for the game/target being shot. The biathalon rifle used by almost everyone is specifically optimized for skiing and shooting. Its 22 long rifle. Not much of a killer caliber. But they just shoot at metal disks. Shotguns are optimized for the birds being shot. And their choke is adjusted to fit how far away the targets will be when encountered. Small birds are OK with 410 or 28 gauge. Less powerful. But big birds such as pheasants will want a 12 gauge or at worst a 20 gauge. Skeet shooters shoot clay disks flying through the sky. Their over/under shotguns are 12 gauge and optimized for breaking the clay pigeons. And with hunting rifles, the bolt action is preferred by most. Accurate and can be made in all calibers on earth. Big caliber for shooting buffaloes or elephants in Africa. Smaller 22 or 30 calibers for deer in the US. And their are bigger cartridges for bigger game such as bear or moose. Optimized by
> caliber for the game being shot.
> >
> > 22 caliber rifle firearms are optimized for practice essentially. Plinking. Or for kids to learn how to shoot a firearm. I have a couple 22 rifles available to use. Shooting opossums or raccoons. Not killing people.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> The fact is Frank that you really don't know anything at all about
> >> firearms and are speaking from a position of overwhelming ignorance.
> >> Your entire "claim to fame" in the gun question seems to be, "Oh yes,
> >> I fired one, once".
> >>
> >> And yes, you don't like them, one might even, from your writing,
> >> believe that you fear them, but, again from your writing, you
> >> certainly don't have any real knowledge of them.
> >>
> >> So lets just leave it at that. You are ranting and raving about a
> >> subject which you know, literally, nothing (yes, I know you shot one
> >> once) about.
> >> --
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> John B.
> I can't comment on 'intent' but for many years the #1 round
> for wounds/deaths in USA was .22LR. And .22 rifles dominated
> other long arms as a group. (I suspect mostly negligent as
> people are less safety conscious with a 'mere' .22 but I
> don't know that.)

Many outright murders are actually assassinations and the .22 is the prefered weapon of assasins because it makes so little sound. As for long rifles - these were used by kids to learn to shoot and farmers etc, for meat such as rabbits and squirrels. Being the most common guns would imply why the most injuries and deths accidental or not were caused by that weapon.

Didn't I see someone write that a 22 caliber wass never used in war? The NATO round is .223 caliber and was used throughout the middle eastern wars. This is because these fights were all close actions and carrying more ammo was more important than long range accuracy which suffers since the lighter bullet is more effected by wind.

The M1B is a clip fed .308 which is the same bullet but a shorter cartrige than the 30-06

On 5/30/2022 9:49 PM, John B. wrote:
> rOn Mon, 30 May 2022 21:12:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/30/2022 7:22 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 May 2022 11:24:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/29/2022 11:52 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 22:54:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/29/2022 6:30 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 10:57:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/28/2022 10:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The only legal "assault rifles" to use the common term are restricted
>>>>>>>>> to "semi automatic", i.e., they fire once every time you pull the
>>>>>>>>> trigger. This system dates back to1895 in rifles and semi automatic
>>>>>>>>> pistols seem to date back to the 1800's also. Short barrel, "carbine"
>>>>>>>>> sort of thing. I can't find a specific date for first use but the term
>>>>>>>>> seems to dates back to the 1600's. Pistol grip? The first I can find
>>>>>>>>> is the Delvigne, patented in 1840. Large magazines.. The Henry Rifle,
>>>>>>>>> patented in 1860 had a 15 round magazine.
>>>>>>>> You should give a list of mass shootings in which the Henry rifle was
>>>>>>>> the main weapon used. That would really buttress your argument, wouldn't
>>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Conversely, failure to provide such a list would indicate how weak your
>>>>>>>> points are.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good on yuh Frank. A nice end run about my dissertation pointing out
>>>>>>> that all your claims to modern rifles being, what was the word you
>>>>>>> used? Optimized for man killing? When in fact every thing about them
>>>>>>> is copied from weapons that have been available for a hundred years or
>>>>>>> more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Show me a hundred year old rifle that weighs less than ten pounds and
>>>>>> can fire four or five rounds in one second. And that can be easily
>>>>>> fitted with a 50 round magazine. (While you're at it, explain why a
>>>>>> non-military person needs such capability. What are the advantages?)
>>>>>>
>>>>> But Frank, you kept going on and on about optimized for killing. I was
>>>>> simply demonstrating that WOW! Here is a gun optimized for killing way
>>>>> back in 1903 and used for that purpose for 50 years or more. Don't
>>>>> deaths before, well say 1989 when the first "assault rifle, an AK-47,
>>>>> was used to kill civilians, count?
>>>>
>>>> Watch the Jim Jeffries videos again. The 1770's muskets were optimized
>>>> for killing. If that design was what gun fetishists wanted today, we'd
>>>> have far fewer problems and roughly zero mass murders. Technology makes
>>>> a difference.
>>>
>>> Frank, you are a fool.
>>>
>>> Yes the 1779's muskets were optimized for killing. Of course they
>>> were. Or do you some how think that military weapons and tactics were
>>> somehow foolish simply because they don't match modern fancies?
>>>
>>> A an example, in the earlier days smooth bore "muskets" were the
>>> preferred infantry fire arm although the much more accurate "rifle"
>>> was invented in 1498. Evidence of the suddenness of the military. Not
>>> hardly. The musket could be loaded very quickly, four shots per
>>> minute, while the rifle took at least twice as long and as a battle
>>> progressed and the rifle became more and more "fouled" with powder
>>> residue even longer to load.
>>>
>>> So Frank, you exhibit your lack of knowledge about firearms once
>>> again.
>>>
>>> You go on and on about these terrible assault rifles that are
>>> "optimized for killing. Don't you realize that all firearms, from the
>>> very first "fire lance" developed in China more then 1000 years ago,
>>> were designed for, and logically optimized for, killing people?
>>>
>>> The fact is Frank that you really don't know anything at all about
>>> firearms and are speaking from a position of overwhelming ignorance.
>>> Your entire "claim to fame" in the gun question seems to be, "Oh yes,
>>> I fired one, once".
>>>
>>> And yes, you don't like them, one might even, from your writing,
>>> believe that you fear them, but, again from your writing, you
>>> certainly don't have any real knowledge of them.
>>>
>>> So lets just leave it at that. You are ranting and raving about a
>>> subject which you know, literally, nothing (yes, I know you shot one
>>> once) about.
>>
>> I'm sorry, John, you seem to have somehow completely misunderstood my
>> remark. I _said_ the 1700s muskets were optimized for killing. Don't
>> pretend I said the opposite.
>>
>> Let me get more specific for you, regarding the implications: If the
>> guns of today were similar to the guns available for killing when the
>> 2nd amendment was written, we would have far, far fewer gun killings. We
>> would have no mass murders by gun, and so almost no mass murders at all.
>>
>> But technology has advanced tremendously. It would be fine if only what
>> was permissible in 1780 were permissible today, but we now have the
>> technological capability of killing a couple dozen innocent people
>> within a couple minutes. That should not even be legal in the hands of
>> the general public. What benefit does it confer?
>>
>> And BTW, despite your claim, not all guns are optimized for killing
>> people. Would you say that about a single shot 22 rifle? Those are
>> typically optimized for shooting targets and small game. Many shotguns
>> are optimized for killing waterfowl. Many guns are optimized for very
>> serious target shooting.
>>
>> You must have known all that. Did you just forget?
>
> O.K. one last time...
>
> You wrote. "Watch the Jim Jeffries videos again. The 1770's muskets
> were optimized for killing"
>
> And I agreed with you.
>
> You stated that, "If that design was what gun fetishists wanted today,
> we'd have far fewer problems and roughly zero mass murders. Technology
> makes difference."
>
> And I pointed out that they were "optimized" to be the best. With the
> technology that desisted at the time.

You should desist the use of words with which you're not familiar! :-)

> Your arguments are silly at best and in fact just another example of
> your total lack of knowledge of what you are talking about.
>
> But O.K. lets go back to 1700's. No cars, Think of it, 47,000 lives
> saved! No bicycles, another "nearly 1,000" lives saved.
>
> Ridicules? Certainly.

That's actually spelled "ridiculous," John. But we do have a point of
agreement. It is ridiculous, which is why _nobody_ but you has mentioned
going back to the 1700s.

And your specious argument stays miles away from the point I keep
bringing up: Benefits vs. detriments. The societal and individual
benefits of bicycles are well documented. (See below.)

But benefits vs. detriments of the guns you're advocating? You've
repeatedly refused to list the practical advantages of allowing almost
anyone to buy a firearm that can fire more than ten rounds in a minute -
let alone one that can be fitted with a 50 round magazine and spray it
empty in fifteen seconds.

I'm convinced you've refused to list those advantages because you can't
think of any, or at least any that have a hope of counterbalancing the
effects of mass shootings.

------------------------------------------------------------

The benefits of bicycling have consistently been found to greatly
outweigh its tiny risks.

On 5/31/2022 8:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/30/2022 11:56 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 6:22:39 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 May 2022 11:24:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/29/2022 11:52 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 22:54:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/29/2022 6:30 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 10:57:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/28/2022 10:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The only legal "assault rifles" to use the common term are
>>>>>>>>> restricted
>>>>>>>>> to "semi automatic", i.e., they fire once every time you pull the
>>>>>>>>> trigger. This system dates back to1895 in rifles and semi
>>>>>>>>> automatic
>>>>>>>>> pistols seem to date back to the 1800's also. Short barrel,
>>>>>>>>> "carbine"
>>>>>>>>> sort of thing. I can't find a specific date for first use but
>>>>>>>>> the term
>>>>>>>>> seems to dates back to the 1600's. Pistol grip? The first I can
>>>>>>>>> find
>>>>>>>>> is the Delvigne, patented in 1840. Large magazines.. The Henry
>>>>>>>>> Rifle,
>>>>>>>>> patented in 1860 had a 15 round magazine.
>>>>>>>> You should give a list of mass shootings in which the Henry
>>>>>>>> rifle was
>>>>>>>> the main weapon used. That would really buttress your argument,
>>>>>>>> wouldn't
>>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Conversely, failure to provide such a list would indicate how
>>>>>>>> weak your
>>>>>>>> points are.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good on yuh Frank. A nice end run about my dissertation pointing out
>>>>>>> that all your claims to modern rifles being, what was the word you
>>>>>>> used? Optimized for man killing? When in fact every thing about them
>>>>>>> is copied from weapons that have been available for a hundred
>>>>>>> years or
>>>>>>> more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Show me a hundred year old rifle that weighs less than ten pounds and
>>>>>> can fire four or five rounds in one second. And that can be easily
>>>>>> fitted with a 50 round magazine. (While you're at it, explain why a
>>>>>> non-military person needs such capability. What are the advantages?)
>>>>>>
>>>>> But Frank, you kept going on and on about optimized for killing. I was
>>>>> simply demonstrating that WOW! Here is a gun optimized for killing way
>>>>> back in 1903 and used for that purpose for 50 years or more. Don't
>>>>> deaths before, well say 1989 when the first "assault rifle, an AK-47,
>>>>> was used to kill civilians, count?
>>>>
>>>> Watch the Jim Jeffries videos again. The 1770's muskets were optimized
>>>> for killing. If that design was what gun fetishists wanted today, we'd
>>>> have far fewer problems and roughly zero mass murders. Technology makes
>>>> a difference.
>>> Frank, you are a fool.
>>>
>>> Yes the 1779's muskets were optimized for killing. Of course they
>>> were. Or do you some how think that military weapons and tactics were
>>> somehow foolish simply because they don't match modern fancies?
>>>
>>> A an example, in the earlier days smooth bore "muskets" were the
>>> preferred infantry fire arm although the much more accurate "rifle"
>>> was invented in 1498. Evidence of the suddenness of the military. Not
>>> hardly. The musket could be loaded very quickly, four shots per
>>> minute, while the rifle took at least twice as long and as a battle
>>> progressed and the rifle became more and more "fouled" with powder
>>> residue even longer to load.
>>>
>>> So Frank, you exhibit your lack of knowledge about firearms once
>>> again.
>>>
>>> You go on and on about these terrible assault rifles that are
>>> "optimized for killing. Don't you realize that all firearms, from the
>>> very first "fire lance" developed in China more then 1000 years ago,
>>> were designed for, and logically optimized for, killing people?
>>
>> No.  Modern civilian rifles and shotguns are optimized for the
>> game/target being shot.  The biathalon rifle used by almost everyone
>> is specifically optimized for skiing and shooting.  Its 22 long
>> rifle.  Not much of a killer caliber.  But they just shoot at metal
>> disks.  Shotguns are optimized for the birds being shot.  And their
>> choke is adjusted to fit how far away the targets will be when
>> encountered.  Small birds are OK with 410 or 28 gauge.  Less
>> powerful.  But big birds such as pheasants will want a 12 gauge or at
>> worst a 20 gauge.  Skeet shooters shoot clay disks flying through the
>> sky.  Their over/under shotguns are 12 gauge and optimized for
>> breaking the clay pigeons.  And with hunting rifles, the bolt action
>> is preferred by most.  Accurate and can be made in all calibers on
>> earth.  Big caliber for shooting buffaloes or elephants in Africa.
>> Smaller 22 or 30 calibers for deer in the US.  And their are bigger
>> cartridges for bigger game such as bear or moose.  Optimized by
> caliber for the game being shot.
>>
>> 22 caliber rifle firearms are optimized for practice essentially.
>> Plinking.  Or for kids to learn how to shoot a firearm.  I have a
>> couple 22 rifles available to use.  Shooting opossums or raccoons.
>> Not killing people.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The fact is Frank that you really don't know anything at all about
>>> firearms and are speaking from a position of overwhelming ignorance.
>>> Your entire "claim to fame" in the gun question seems to be, "Oh yes,
>>> I fired one, once".
>>>
>>> And yes, you don't like them, one might even, from your writing,
>>> believe that you fear them, but, again from your writing, you
>>> certainly don't have any real knowledge of them.
>>>
>>> So lets just leave it at that. You are ranting and raving about a
>>> subject which you know, literally, nothing (yes, I know you shot one
>>> once) about.
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> John B.
>
> I can't comment on 'intent' but for many years the #1 round for
> wounds/deaths in USA was .22LR. And .22 rifles dominated other long arms
> as a group. (I suspect mostly negligent as people are less safety
> conscious with a  'mere' .22 but I don't know that.)

We were discussing optimization for killing humans. 22 accidents are a
different matter entirely.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 10:15:21 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 5:48:36 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 5/30/2022 11:56 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 6:22:39 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 30 May 2022 11:24:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> > >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On 5/29/2022 11:52 PM, John B. wrote:
> > >>>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 22:54:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> > >>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On 5/29/2022 6:30 PM, John B. wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 10:57:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> > >>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On 5/28/2022 10:19 PM, John B. wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> The only legal "assault rifles" to use the common term are restricted
> > >>>>>>>> to "semi automatic", i.e., they fire once every time you pull the
> > >>>>>>>> trigger. This system dates back to1895 in rifles and semi automatic
> > >>>>>>>> pistols seem to date back to the 1800's also. Short barrel, "carbine"
> > >>>>>>>> sort of thing. I can't find a specific date for first use but the term
> > >>>>>>>> seems to dates back to the 1600's. Pistol grip? The first I can find
> > >>>>>>>> is the Delvigne, patented in 1840. Large magazines.. The Henry Rifle,
> > >>>>>>>> patented in 1860 had a 15 round magazine.
> > >>>>>>> You should give a list of mass shootings in which the Henry rifle was
> > >>>>>>> the main weapon used. That would really buttress your argument, wouldn't
> > >>>>>>> it?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Conversely, failure to provide such a list would indicate how weak your
> > >>>>>>> points are.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Good on yuh Frank. A nice end run about my dissertation pointing out
> > >>>>>> that all your claims to modern rifles being, what was the word you
> > >>>>>> used? Optimized for man killing? When in fact every thing about them
> > >>>>>> is copied from weapons that have been available for a hundred years or
> > >>>>>> more.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Show me a hundred year old rifle that weighs less than ten pounds and
> > >>>>> can fire four or five rounds in one second. And that can be easily
> > >>>>> fitted with a 50 round magazine. (While you're at it, explain why a
> > >>>>> non-military person needs such capability. What are the advantages?)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> But Frank, you kept going on and on about optimized for killing. I was
> > >>>> simply demonstrating that WOW! Here is a gun optimized for killing way
> > >>>> back in 1903 and used for that purpose for 50 years or more. Don't
> > >>>> deaths before, well say 1989 when the first "assault rifle, an AK-47,
> > >>>> was used to kill civilians, count?
> > >>>
> > >>> Watch the Jim Jeffries videos again. The 1770's muskets were optimized
> > >>> for killing. If that design was what gun fetishists wanted today, we'd
> > >>> have far fewer problems and roughly zero mass murders. Technology makes
> > >>> a difference.
> > >> Frank, you are a fool.
> > >>
> > >> Yes the 1779's muskets were optimized for killing. Of course they
> > >> were. Or do you some how think that military weapons and tactics were
> > >> somehow foolish simply because they don't match modern fancies?
> > >>
> > >> A an example, in the earlier days smooth bore "muskets" were the
> > >> preferred infantry fire arm although the much more accurate "rifle"
> > >> was invented in 1498. Evidence of the suddenness of the military. Not
> > >> hardly. The musket could be loaded very quickly, four shots per
> > >> minute, while the rifle took at least twice as long and as a battle
> > >> progressed and the rifle became more and more "fouled" with powder
> > >> residue even longer to load.
> > >>
> > >> So Frank, you exhibit your lack of knowledge about firearms once
> > >> again.
> > >>
> > >> You go on and on about these terrible assault rifles that are
> > >> "optimized for killing. Don't you realize that all firearms, from the
> > >> very first "fire lance" developed in China more then 1000 years ago,
> > >> were designed for, and logically optimized for, killing people?
> > >
> > > No. Modern civilian rifles and shotguns are optimized for the game/target being shot. The biathalon rifle used by almost everyone is specifically optimized for skiing and shooting. Its 22 long rifle. Not much of a killer caliber. But they just shoot at metal disks. Shotguns are optimized for the birds being shot. And their choke is adjusted to fit how far away the targets will be when encountered. Small birds are OK with 410 or 28 gauge. Less powerful. But big birds such as pheasants will want a 12 gauge or at worst a 20 gauge. Skeet shooters shoot clay disks flying through the sky. Their over/under shotguns are 12 gauge and optimized for breaking the clay pigeons. And with hunting rifles, the bolt action is preferred by most. Accurate and can be made in all calibers on earth. Big caliber for shooting buffaloes or elephants in Africa. Smaller 22 or 30 calibers for deer in the US. And their are bigger cartridges for bigger game such as bear or moose. Optimized by
> > caliber for the game being shot.
> > >
> > > 22 caliber rifle firearms are optimized for practice essentially. Plinking. Or for kids to learn how to shoot a firearm. I have a couple 22 rifles available to use. Shooting opossums or raccoons. Not killing people.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> The fact is Frank that you really don't know anything at all about
> > >> firearms and are speaking from a position of overwhelming ignorance.
> > >> Your entire "claim to fame" in the gun question seems to be, "Oh yes,
> > >> I fired one, once".
> > >>
> > >> And yes, you don't like them, one might even, from your writing,
> > >> believe that you fear them, but, again from your writing, you
> > >> certainly don't have any real knowledge of them.
> > >>
> > >> So lets just leave it at that. You are ranting and raving about a
> > >> subject which you know, literally, nothing (yes, I know you shot one
> > >> once) about.
> > >> --
> > >> Cheers,
> > >>
> > >> John B.
> > I can't comment on 'intent' but for many years the #1 round
> > for wounds/deaths in USA was .22LR. And .22 rifles dominated
> > other long arms as a group. (I suspect mostly negligent as
> > people are less safety conscious with a 'mere' .22 but I
> > don't know that.)
> Many outright murders are actually assassinations and the .22 is the prefered weapon of assasins because it makes so little sound. As for long rifles - these were used by kids to learn to shoot and farmers etc, for meat such as rabbits and squirrels. Being the most common guns would imply why the most injuries and deths accidental or not were caused by that weapon.
>
> Didn't I see someone write that a 22 caliber wass never used in war? The NATO round is .223 caliber and was used throughout the middle eastern wars. This is because these fights were all close actions and carrying more ammo was more important than long range accuracy which suffers since the lighter bullet is more effected by wind.
>
> The M1B is a clip fed .308 which is the same bullet but a shorter cartrige than the 30-06

Tommy, you not being knowledgeable, you conflate the .223/5.56mm NATO round (centerfire) used by many militaries around the world, since the 1960s, with the .22 Long Rifle or Long or Short rimfire round used in many rifles in the USA. And a few pistols too. The DIAMETER is about the same. .22 inches more or less. But the bullet weight (40 grain or 62 grain), amount of lead, and the shell casing and the amount of powder in the casing are VASTLY different. The muzzle velocity and muzzle energy are VASTLY different too. 3240 fps and 1282 ft lb for the .223. And 1200 fps and 120 ft lb for the 22 Long Rifle.

On Tue, 31 May 2022 07:48:33 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 5/30/2022 11:56 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 6:22:39 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 May 2022 11:24:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/29/2022 11:52 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 22:54:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/29/2022 6:30 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 10:57:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/28/2022 10:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The only legal "assault rifles" to use the common term are restricted
>>>>>>>>> to "semi automatic", i.e., they fire once every time you pull the
>>>>>>>>> trigger. This system dates back to1895 in rifles and semi automatic
>>>>>>>>> pistols seem to date back to the 1800's also. Short barrel, "carbine"
>>>>>>>>> sort of thing. I can't find a specific date for first use but the term
>>>>>>>>> seems to dates back to the 1600's. Pistol grip? The first I can find
>>>>>>>>> is the Delvigne, patented in 1840. Large magazines.. The Henry Rifle,
>>>>>>>>> patented in 1860 had a 15 round magazine.
>>>>>>>> You should give a list of mass shootings in which the Henry rifle was
>>>>>>>> the main weapon used. That would really buttress your argument, wouldn't
>>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Conversely, failure to provide such a list would indicate how weak your
>>>>>>>> points are.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good on yuh Frank. A nice end run about my dissertation pointing out
>>>>>>> that all your claims to modern rifles being, what was the word you
>>>>>>> used? Optimized for man killing? When in fact every thing about them
>>>>>>> is copied from weapons that have been available for a hundred years or
>>>>>>> more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Show me a hundred year old rifle that weighs less than ten pounds and
>>>>>> can fire four or five rounds in one second. And that can be easily
>>>>>> fitted with a 50 round magazine. (While you're at it, explain why a
>>>>>> non-military person needs such capability. What are the advantages?)
>>>>>>
>>>>> But Frank, you kept going on and on about optimized for killing. I was
>>>>> simply demonstrating that WOW! Here is a gun optimized for killing way
>>>>> back in 1903 and used for that purpose for 50 years or more. Don't
>>>>> deaths before, well say 1989 when the first "assault rifle, an AK-47,
>>>>> was used to kill civilians, count?
>>>>
>>>> Watch the Jim Jeffries videos again. The 1770's muskets were optimized
>>>> for killing. If that design was what gun fetishists wanted today, we'd
>>>> have far fewer problems and roughly zero mass murders. Technology makes
>>>> a difference.
>>> Frank, you are a fool.
>>>
>>> Yes the 1779's muskets were optimized for killing. Of course they
>>> were. Or do you some how think that military weapons and tactics were
>>> somehow foolish simply because they don't match modern fancies?
>>>
>>> A an example, in the earlier days smooth bore "muskets" were the
>>> preferred infantry fire arm although the much more accurate "rifle"
>>> was invented in 1498. Evidence of the suddenness of the military. Not
>>> hardly. The musket could be loaded very quickly, four shots per
>>> minute, while the rifle took at least twice as long and as a battle
>>> progressed and the rifle became more and more "fouled" with powder
>>> residue even longer to load.
>>>
>>> So Frank, you exhibit your lack of knowledge about firearms once
>>> again.
>>>
>>> You go on and on about these terrible assault rifles that are
>>> "optimized for killing. Don't you realize that all firearms, from the
>>> very first "fire lance" developed in China more then 1000 years ago,
>>> were designed for, and logically optimized for, killing people?
>>
>> No. Modern civilian rifles and shotguns are optimized for the game/target being shot. The biathalon rifle used by almost everyone is specifically optimized for skiing and shooting. Its 22 long rifle. Not much of a killer caliber. But they just shoot at metal disks. Shotguns are optimized for the birds being shot. And their choke is adjusted to fit how far away the targets will be when encountered. Small birds are OK with 410 or 28 gauge. Less powerful. But big birds such as pheasants will want a 12 gauge or at worst a 20 gauge. Skeet shooters shoot clay disks flying through the sky. Their over/under shotguns are 12 gauge and optimized for breaking the clay pigeons. And with hunting rifles, the bolt action is preferred by most. Accurate and can be made in all calibers on earth. Big caliber for shooting buffaloes or elephants in Africa. Smaller 22 or 30 calibers for deer in the US. And their are bigger cartridges for bigger game such as bear or moose. Optimized by
>caliber for the game being shot.
>>
>> 22 caliber rifle firearms are optimized for practice essentially. Plinking. Or for kids to learn how to shoot a firearm. I have a couple 22 rifles available to use. Shooting opossums or raccoons. Not killing people.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The fact is Frank that you really don't know anything at all about
>>> firearms and are speaking from a position of overwhelming ignorance.
>>> Your entire "claim to fame" in the gun question seems to be, "Oh yes,
>>> I fired one, once".
>>>
>>> And yes, you don't like them, one might even, from your writing,
>>> believe that you fear them, but, again from your writing, you
>>> certainly don't have any real knowledge of them.
>>>
>>> So lets just leave it at that. You are ranting and raving about a
>>> subject which you know, literally, nothing (yes, I know you shot one
>>> once) about.
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> John B.
>
>I can't comment on 'intent' but for many years the #1 round
>for wounds/deaths in USA was .22LR. And .22 rifles dominated
>other long arms as a group. (I suspect mostly negligent as
>people are less safety conscious with a 'mere' .22 but I
>don't know that.)

I've always thought, with little evidence, that a lot of people
considered the .22 as a sort of toy, or at least not really all that
dangerious. When I was in school a kid came to school, "shot in the
leg", a bullet wound in his calf, or at least a bandage on his calf.
He said that "we were playing cowboys and Indians".
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 5/31/2022 5:48 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 10:15:21 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 5:48:36 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 5/30/2022 11:56 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 6:22:39 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 30 May 2022 11:24:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/29/2022 11:52 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 22:54:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/29/2022 6:30 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 10:57:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/28/2022 10:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The only legal "assault rifles" to use the common term are restricted
>>>>>>>>>>> to "semi automatic", i.e., they fire once every time you pull the
>>>>>>>>>>> trigger. This system dates back to1895 in rifles and semi automatic
>>>>>>>>>>> pistols seem to date back to the 1800's also. Short barrel, "carbine"
>>>>>>>>>>> sort of thing. I can't find a specific date for first use but the term
>>>>>>>>>>> seems to dates back to the 1600's. Pistol grip? The first I can find
>>>>>>>>>>> is the Delvigne, patented in 1840. Large magazines.. The Henry Rifle,
>>>>>>>>>>> patented in 1860 had a 15 round magazine.
>>>>>>>>>> You should give a list of mass shootings in which the Henry rifle was
>>>>>>>>>> the main weapon used. That would really buttress your argument, wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Conversely, failure to provide such a list would indicate how weak your
>>>>>>>>>> points are.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Good on yuh Frank. A nice end run about my dissertation pointing out
>>>>>>>>> that all your claims to modern rifles being, what was the word you
>>>>>>>>> used? Optimized for man killing? When in fact every thing about them
>>>>>>>>> is copied from weapons that have been available for a hundred years or
>>>>>>>>> more.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Show me a hundred year old rifle that weighs less than ten pounds and
>>>>>>>> can fire four or five rounds in one second. And that can be easily
>>>>>>>> fitted with a 50 round magazine. (While you're at it, explain why a
>>>>>>>> non-military person needs such capability. What are the advantages?)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But Frank, you kept going on and on about optimized for killing. I was
>>>>>>> simply demonstrating that WOW! Here is a gun optimized for killing way
>>>>>>> back in 1903 and used for that purpose for 50 years or more. Don't
>>>>>>> deaths before, well say 1989 when the first "assault rifle, an AK-47,
>>>>>>> was used to kill civilians, count?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Watch the Jim Jeffries videos again. The 1770's muskets were optimized
>>>>>> for killing. If that design was what gun fetishists wanted today, we'd
>>>>>> have far fewer problems and roughly zero mass murders. Technology makes
>>>>>> a difference.
>>>>> Frank, you are a fool.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes the 1779's muskets were optimized for killing. Of course they
>>>>> were. Or do you some how think that military weapons and tactics were
>>>>> somehow foolish simply because they don't match modern fancies?
>>>>>
>>>>> A an example, in the earlier days smooth bore "muskets" were the
>>>>> preferred infantry fire arm although the much more accurate "rifle"
>>>>> was invented in 1498. Evidence of the suddenness of the military. Not
>>>>> hardly. The musket could be loaded very quickly, four shots per
>>>>> minute, while the rifle took at least twice as long and as a battle
>>>>> progressed and the rifle became more and more "fouled" with powder
>>>>> residue even longer to load.
>>>>>
>>>>> So Frank, you exhibit your lack of knowledge about firearms once
>>>>> again.
>>>>>
>>>>> You go on and on about these terrible assault rifles that are
>>>>> "optimized for killing. Don't you realize that all firearms, from the
>>>>> very first "fire lance" developed in China more then 1000 years ago,
>>>>> were designed for, and logically optimized for, killing people?
>>>>
>>>> No. Modern civilian rifles and shotguns are optimized for the game/target being shot. The biathalon rifle used by almost everyone is specifically optimized for skiing and shooting. Its 22 long rifle. Not much of a killer caliber. But they just shoot at metal disks. Shotguns are optimized for the birds being shot. And their choke is adjusted to fit how far away the targets will be when encountered. Small birds are OK with 410 or 28 gauge. Less powerful. But big birds such as pheasants will want a 12 gauge or at worst a 20 gauge. Skeet shooters shoot clay disks flying through the sky. Their over/under shotguns are 12 gauge and optimized for breaking the clay pigeons. And with hunting rifles, the bolt action is preferred by most. Accurate and can be made in all calibers on earth. Big caliber for shooting buffaloes or elephants in Africa. Smaller 22 or 30 calibers for deer in the US. And their are bigger cartridges for bigger game such as bear or moose. Optimized by
>>> caliber for the game being shot.
>>>>
>>>> 22 caliber rifle firearms are optimized for practice essentially. Plinking. Or for kids to learn how to shoot a firearm. I have a couple 22 rifles available to use. Shooting opossums or raccoons. Not killing people.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact is Frank that you really don't know anything at all about
>>>>> firearms and are speaking from a position of overwhelming ignorance.
>>>>> Your entire "claim to fame" in the gun question seems to be, "Oh yes,
>>>>> I fired one, once".
>>>>>
>>>>> And yes, you don't like them, one might even, from your writing,
>>>>> believe that you fear them, but, again from your writing, you
>>>>> certainly don't have any real knowledge of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> So lets just leave it at that. You are ranting and raving about a
>>>>> subject which you know, literally, nothing (yes, I know you shot one
>>>>> once) about.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> John B.
>>> I can't comment on 'intent' but for many years the #1 round
>>> for wounds/deaths in USA was .22LR. And .22 rifles dominated
>>> other long arms as a group. (I suspect mostly negligent as
>>> people are less safety conscious with a 'mere' .22 but I
>>> don't know that.)
>> Many outright murders are actually assassinations and the .22 is the prefered weapon of assasins because it makes so little sound. As for long rifles - these were used by kids to learn to shoot and farmers etc, for meat such as rabbits and squirrels. Being the most common guns would imply why the most injuries and deths accidental or not were caused by that weapon.
>>
>> Didn't I see someone write that a 22 caliber wass never used in war? The NATO round is .223 caliber and was used throughout the middle eastern wars. This is because these fights were all close actions and carrying more ammo was more important than long range accuracy which suffers since the lighter bullet is more effected by wind.
>>
>> The M1B is a clip fed .308 which is the same bullet but a shorter cartrige than the 30-06
>
> Tommy, you not being knowledgeable, you conflate the .223/5.56mm NATO round (centerfire) used by many militaries around the world, since the 1960s, with the .22 Long Rifle or Long or Short rimfire round used in many rifles in the USA. And a few pistols too. The DIAMETER is about the same. .22 inches more or less. But the bullet weight (40 grain or 62 grain), amount of lead, and the shell casing and the amount of powder in the casing are VASTLY different. The muzzle velocity and muzzle energy are VASTLY different too. 3240 fps and 1282 ft lb for the .223. And 1200 fps and 120 ft lb for the 22 Long Rifle.
>
> Kind of like a regulation barbell weighs 45 pounds. Add two 5 pound weights to either side and it is 55 pounds. A bushel of shelled corn is 56 pounds in its paper bag. Assuming your are buying bags of seed corn. Identical weight more or less. But not when you try to pick them up and move them around. A 55 pound barbell and a 56 pound bag of corn are different. Kind of like a .22 rimfire cartridge and a .223/5.56mm NATO round are different. Despite both having a diameter of .22 inches.
>

On Tue, 31 May 2022 19:00:28 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 5/31/2022 5:48 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 10:15:21 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 5:48:36 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 5/30/2022 11:56 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 6:22:39 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 30 May 2022 11:24:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/29/2022 11:52 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 22:54:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/29/2022 6:30 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 10:57:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/28/2022 10:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The only legal "assault rifles" to use the common term are restricted
>>>>>>>>>>>> to "semi automatic", i.e., they fire once every time you pull the
>>>>>>>>>>>> trigger. This system dates back to1895 in rifles and semi automatic
>>>>>>>>>>>> pistols seem to date back to the 1800's also. Short barrel, "carbine"
>>>>>>>>>>>> sort of thing. I can't find a specific date for first use but the term
>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to dates back to the 1600's. Pistol grip? The first I can find
>>>>>>>>>>>> is the Delvigne, patented in 1840. Large magazines.. The Henry Rifle,
>>>>>>>>>>>> patented in 1860 had a 15 round magazine.
>>>>>>>>>>> You should give a list of mass shootings in which the Henry rifle was
>>>>>>>>>>> the main weapon used. That would really buttress your argument, wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Conversely, failure to provide such a list would indicate how weak your
>>>>>>>>>>> points are.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Good on yuh Frank. A nice end run about my dissertation pointing out
>>>>>>>>>> that all your claims to modern rifles being, what was the word you
>>>>>>>>>> used? Optimized for man killing? When in fact every thing about them
>>>>>>>>>> is copied from weapons that have been available for a hundred years or
>>>>>>>>>> more.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Show me a hundred year old rifle that weighs less than ten pounds and
>>>>>>>>> can fire four or five rounds in one second. And that can be easily
>>>>>>>>> fitted with a 50 round magazine. (While you're at it, explain why a
>>>>>>>>> non-military person needs such capability. What are the advantages?)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But Frank, you kept going on and on about optimized for killing. I was
>>>>>>>> simply demonstrating that WOW! Here is a gun optimized for killing way
>>>>>>>> back in 1903 and used for that purpose for 50 years or more. Don't
>>>>>>>> deaths before, well say 1989 when the first "assault rifle, an AK-47,
>>>>>>>> was used to kill civilians, count?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Watch the Jim Jeffries videos again. The 1770's muskets were optimized
>>>>>>> for killing. If that design was what gun fetishists wanted today, we'd
>>>>>>> have far fewer problems and roughly zero mass murders. Technology makes
>>>>>>> a difference.
>>>>>> Frank, you are a fool.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes the 1779's muskets were optimized for killing. Of course they
>>>>>> were. Or do you some how think that military weapons and tactics were
>>>>>> somehow foolish simply because they don't match modern fancies?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A an example, in the earlier days smooth bore "muskets" were the
>>>>>> preferred infantry fire arm although the much more accurate "rifle"
>>>>>> was invented in 1498. Evidence of the suddenness of the military. Not
>>>>>> hardly. The musket could be loaded very quickly, four shots per
>>>>>> minute, while the rifle took at least twice as long and as a battle
>>>>>> progressed and the rifle became more and more "fouled" with powder
>>>>>> residue even longer to load.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So Frank, you exhibit your lack of knowledge about firearms once
>>>>>> again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You go on and on about these terrible assault rifles that are
>>>>>> "optimized for killing. Don't you realize that all firearms, from the
>>>>>> very first "fire lance" developed in China more then 1000 years ago,
>>>>>> were designed for, and logically optimized for, killing people?
>>>>>
>>>>> No. Modern civilian rifles and shotguns are optimized for the game/target being shot. The biathalon rifle used by almost everyone is specifically optimized for skiing and shooting. Its 22 long rifle. Not much of a killer caliber. But they just shoot at metal disks. Shotguns are optimized for the birds being shot. And their choke is adjusted to fit how far away the targets will be when encountered. Small birds are OK with 410 or 28 gauge. Less powerful. But big birds such as pheasants will want a 12 gauge or at worst a 20 gauge. Skeet shooters shoot clay disks flying through the sky. Their over/under shotguns are 12 gauge and optimized for breaking the clay pigeons. And with hunting rifles, the bolt action is preferred by most. Accurate and can be made in all calibers on earth. Big caliber for shooting buffaloes or elephants in Africa. Smaller 22 or 30 calibers for deer in the US. And their are bigger cartridges for bigger game such as bear or moose. Optimized by
>>>> caliber for the game being shot.
>>>>>
>>>>> 22 caliber rifle firearms are optimized for practice essentially. Plinking. Or for kids to learn how to shoot a firearm. I have a couple 22 rifles available to use. Shooting opossums or raccoons. Not killing people.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact is Frank that you really don't know anything at all about
>>>>>> firearms and are speaking from a position of overwhelming ignorance.
>>>>>> Your entire "claim to fame" in the gun question seems to be, "Oh yes,
>>>>>> I fired one, once".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And yes, you don't like them, one might even, from your writing,
>>>>>> believe that you fear them, but, again from your writing, you
>>>>>> certainly don't have any real knowledge of them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So lets just leave it at that. You are ranting and raving about a
>>>>>> subject which you know, literally, nothing (yes, I know you shot one
>>>>>> once) about.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John B.
>>>> I can't comment on 'intent' but for many years the #1 round
>>>> for wounds/deaths in USA was .22LR. And .22 rifles dominated
>>>> other long arms as a group. (I suspect mostly negligent as
>>>> people are less safety conscious with a 'mere' .22 but I
>>>> don't know that.)
>>> Many outright murders are actually assassinations and the .22 is the prefered weapon of assasins because it makes so little sound. As for long rifles - these were used by kids to learn to shoot and farmers etc, for meat such as rabbits and squirrels. Being the most common guns would imply why the most injuries and deths accidental or not were caused by that weapon.
>>>
>>> Didn't I see someone write that a 22 caliber wass never used in war? The NATO round is .223 caliber and was used throughout the middle eastern wars. This is because these fights were all close actions and carrying more ammo was more important than long range accuracy which suffers since the lighter bullet is more effected by wind.
>>>
>>> The M1B is a clip fed .308 which is the same bullet but a shorter cartrige than the 30-06
>>
>> Tommy, you not being knowledgeable, you conflate the .223/5.56mm NATO round (centerfire) used by many militaries around the world, since the 1960s, with the .22 Long Rifle or Long or Short rimfire round used in many rifles in the USA. And a few pistols too. The DIAMETER is about the same. .22 inches more or less. But the bullet weight (40 grain or 62 grain), amount of lead, and the shell casing and the amount of powder in the casing are VASTLY different. The muzzle velocity and muzzle energy are VASTLY different too. 3240 fps and 1282 ft lb for the .223. And 1200 fps and 120 ft lb for the 22 Long Rifle.
>>
>> Kind of like a regulation barbell weighs 45 pounds. Add two 5 pound weights to either side and it is 55 pounds. A bushel of shelled corn is 56 pounds in its paper bag. Assuming your are buying bags of seed corn. Identical weight more or less. But not when you try to pick them up and move them around. A 55 pound barbell and a 56 pound bag of corn are different. Kind of like a .22 rimfire cartridge and a .223/5.56mm NATO round are different. Despite both having a diameter of .22 inches.
>>
>
>More convoluted than I imagined. Not only the Navy .308:
>
>https://www.firearmsoutletcanada.com/springfield-m1-garand-rifle-w-plano-hardcase--308-win--24--surplus.html

On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 7:00:32 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/31/2022 5:48 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 10:15:21 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 5:48:36 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >>> On 5/30/2022 11:56 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 6:22:39 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 30 May 2022 11:24:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 5/29/2022 11:52 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 22:54:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 5/29/2022 6:30 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 10:57:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/28/2022 10:19 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The only legal "assault rifles" to use the common term are restricted
> >>>>>>>>>>> to "semi automatic", i.e., they fire once every time you pull the
> >>>>>>>>>>> trigger. This system dates back to1895 in rifles and semi automatic
> >>>>>>>>>>> pistols seem to date back to the 1800's also. Short barrel, "carbine"
> >>>>>>>>>>> sort of thing. I can't find a specific date for first use but the term
> >>>>>>>>>>> seems to dates back to the 1600's. Pistol grip? The first I can find
> >>>>>>>>>>> is the Delvigne, patented in 1840. Large magazines.. The Henry Rifle,
> >>>>>>>>>>> patented in 1860 had a 15 round magazine.
> >>>>>>>>>> You should give a list of mass shootings in which the Henry rifle was
> >>>>>>>>>> the main weapon used. That would really buttress your argument, wouldn't
> >>>>>>>>>> it?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Conversely, failure to provide such a list would indicate how weak your
> >>>>>>>>>> points are.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Good on yuh Frank. A nice end run about my dissertation pointing out
> >>>>>>>>> that all your claims to modern rifles being, what was the word you
> >>>>>>>>> used? Optimized for man killing? When in fact every thing about them
> >>>>>>>>> is copied from weapons that have been available for a hundred years or
> >>>>>>>>> more.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Show me a hundred year old rifle that weighs less than ten pounds and
> >>>>>>>> can fire four or five rounds in one second. And that can be easily
> >>>>>>>> fitted with a 50 round magazine. (While you're at it, explain why a
> >>>>>>>> non-military person needs such capability. What are the advantages?)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But Frank, you kept going on and on about optimized for killing. I was
> >>>>>>> simply demonstrating that WOW! Here is a gun optimized for killing way
> >>>>>>> back in 1903 and used for that purpose for 50 years or more. Don't
> >>>>>>> deaths before, well say 1989 when the first "assault rifle, an AK-47,
> >>>>>>> was used to kill civilians, count?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Watch the Jim Jeffries videos again. The 1770's muskets were optimized
> >>>>>> for killing. If that design was what gun fetishists wanted today, we'd
> >>>>>> have far fewer problems and roughly zero mass murders. Technology makes
> >>>>>> a difference.
> >>>>> Frank, you are a fool.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes the 1779's muskets were optimized for killing. Of course they
> >>>>> were. Or do you some how think that military weapons and tactics were
> >>>>> somehow foolish simply because they don't match modern fancies?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A an example, in the earlier days smooth bore "muskets" were the
> >>>>> preferred infantry fire arm although the much more accurate "rifle"
> >>>>> was invented in 1498. Evidence of the suddenness of the military. Not
> >>>>> hardly. The musket could be loaded very quickly, four shots per
> >>>>> minute, while the rifle took at least twice as long and as a battle
> >>>>> progressed and the rifle became more and more "fouled" with powder
> >>>>> residue even longer to load.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So Frank, you exhibit your lack of knowledge about firearms once
> >>>>> again.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You go on and on about these terrible assault rifles that are
> >>>>> "optimized for killing. Don't you realize that all firearms, from the
> >>>>> very first "fire lance" developed in China more then 1000 years ago,
> >>>>> were designed for, and logically optimized for, killing people?
> >>>>
> >>>> No. Modern civilian rifles and shotguns are optimized for the game/target being shot. The biathalon rifle used by almost everyone is specifically optimized for skiing and shooting. Its 22 long rifle. Not much of a killer caliber. But they just shoot at metal disks. Shotguns are optimized for the birds being shot. And their choke is adjusted to fit how far away the targets will be when encountered. Small birds are OK with 410 or 28 gauge. Less powerful. But big birds such as pheasants will want a 12 gauge or at worst a 20 gauge. Skeet shooters shoot clay disks flying through the sky. Their over/under shotguns are 12 gauge and optimized for breaking the clay pigeons. And with hunting rifles, the bolt action is preferred by most. Accurate and can be made in all calibers on earth. Big caliber for shooting buffaloes or elephants in Africa. Smaller 22 or 30 calibers for deer in the US. And their are bigger cartridges for bigger game such as bear or moose. Optimized by
> >>> caliber for the game being shot.
> >>>>
> >>>> 22 caliber rifle firearms are optimized for practice essentially. Plinking. Or for kids to learn how to shoot a firearm. I have a couple 22 rifles available to use. Shooting opossums or raccoons. Not killing people.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The fact is Frank that you really don't know anything at all about
> >>>>> firearms and are speaking from a position of overwhelming ignorance..
> >>>>> Your entire "claim to fame" in the gun question seems to be, "Oh yes,
> >>>>> I fired one, once".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And yes, you don't like them, one might even, from your writing,
> >>>>> believe that you fear them, but, again from your writing, you
> >>>>> certainly don't have any real knowledge of them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So lets just leave it at that. You are ranting and raving about a
> >>>>> subject which you know, literally, nothing (yes, I know you shot one
> >>>>> once) about.
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> John B.
> >>> I can't comment on 'intent' but for many years the #1 round
> >>> for wounds/deaths in USA was .22LR. And .22 rifles dominated
> >>> other long arms as a group. (I suspect mostly negligent as
> >>> people are less safety conscious with a 'mere' .22 but I
> >>> don't know that.)
> >> Many outright murders are actually assassinations and the .22 is the prefered weapon of assasins because it makes so little sound. As for long rifles - these were used by kids to learn to shoot and farmers etc, for meat such as rabbits and squirrels. Being the most common guns would imply why the most injuries and deths accidental or not were caused by that weapon.
> >>
> >> Didn't I see someone write that a 22 caliber wass never used in war? The NATO round is .223 caliber and was used throughout the middle eastern wars. This is because these fights were all close actions and carrying more ammo was more important than long range accuracy which suffers since the lighter bullet is more effected by wind.
> >>
> >> The M1B is a clip fed .308 which is the same bullet but a shorter cartrige than the 30-06
> >
> > Tommy, you not being knowledgeable, you conflate the .223/5.56mm NATO round (centerfire) used by many militaries around the world, since the 1960s, with the .22 Long Rifle or Long or Short rimfire round used in many rifles in the USA. And a few pistols too. The DIAMETER is about the same. .22 inches more or less. But the bullet weight (40 grain or 62 grain), amount of lead, and the shell casing and the amount of powder in the casing are VASTLY different. The muzzle velocity and muzzle energy are VASTLY different too.. 3240 fps and 1282 ft lb for the .223. And 1200 fps and 120 ft lb for the 22 Long Rifle.
> >
> > Kind of like a regulation barbell weighs 45 pounds. Add two 5 pound weights to either side and it is 55 pounds. A bushel of shelled corn is 56 pounds in its paper bag. Assuming your are buying bags of seed corn. Identical weight more or less. But not when you try to pick them up and move them around. A 55 pound barbell and a 56 pound bag of corn are different. Kind of like a .22 rimfire cartridge and a .223/5.56mm NATO round are different. Despite both having a diameter of .22 inches.
> >
> More convoluted than I imagined. Not only the Navy .308:
>
> https://www.firearmsoutletcanada.com/springfield-m1-garand-rifle-w-plano-hardcase--308-win--24--surplus.html
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 7:40:52 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2022 19:00:28 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
> >On 5/31/2022 5:48 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 10:15:21 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 5:48:36 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>> On 5/30/2022 11:56 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 6:22:39 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mon, 30 May 2022 11:24:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 5/29/2022 11:52 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 22:54:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 5/29/2022 6:30 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 10:57:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/28/2022 10:19 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The only legal "assault rifles" to use the common term are restricted
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to "semi automatic", i.e., they fire once every time you pull the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> trigger. This system dates back to1895 in rifles and semi automatic
> >>>>>>>>>>>> pistols seem to date back to the 1800's also. Short barrel, "carbine"
> >>>>>>>>>>>> sort of thing. I can't find a specific date for first use but the term
> >>>>>>>>>>>> seems to dates back to the 1600's. Pistol grip? The first I can find
> >>>>>>>>>>>> is the Delvigne, patented in 1840. Large magazines.. The Henry Rifle,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> patented in 1860 had a 15 round magazine.
> >>>>>>>>>>> You should give a list of mass shootings in which the Henry rifle was
> >>>>>>>>>>> the main weapon used. That would really buttress your argument, wouldn't
> >>>>>>>>>>> it?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Conversely, failure to provide such a list would indicate how weak your
> >>>>>>>>>>> points are.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Good on yuh Frank. A nice end run about my dissertation pointing out
> >>>>>>>>>> that all your claims to modern rifles being, what was the word you
> >>>>>>>>>> used? Optimized for man killing? When in fact every thing about them
> >>>>>>>>>> is copied from weapons that have been available for a hundred years or
> >>>>>>>>>> more.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Show me a hundred year old rifle that weighs less than ten pounds and
> >>>>>>>>> can fire four or five rounds in one second. And that can be easily
> >>>>>>>>> fitted with a 50 round magazine. (While you're at it, explain why a
> >>>>>>>>> non-military person needs such capability. What are the advantages?)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> But Frank, you kept going on and on about optimized for killing. I was
> >>>>>>>> simply demonstrating that WOW! Here is a gun optimized for killing way
> >>>>>>>> back in 1903 and used for that purpose for 50 years or more. Don't
> >>>>>>>> deaths before, well say 1989 when the first "assault rifle, an AK-47,
> >>>>>>>> was used to kill civilians, count?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Watch the Jim Jeffries videos again. The 1770's muskets were optimized
> >>>>>>> for killing. If that design was what gun fetishists wanted today, we'd
> >>>>>>> have far fewer problems and roughly zero mass murders. Technology makes
> >>>>>>> a difference.
> >>>>>> Frank, you are a fool.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes the 1779's muskets were optimized for killing. Of course they
> >>>>>> were. Or do you some how think that military weapons and tactics were
> >>>>>> somehow foolish simply because they don't match modern fancies?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A an example, in the earlier days smooth bore "muskets" were the
> >>>>>> preferred infantry fire arm although the much more accurate "rifle"
> >>>>>> was invented in 1498. Evidence of the suddenness of the military. Not
> >>>>>> hardly. The musket could be loaded very quickly, four shots per
> >>>>>> minute, while the rifle took at least twice as long and as a battle
> >>>>>> progressed and the rifle became more and more "fouled" with powder
> >>>>>> residue even longer to load.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So Frank, you exhibit your lack of knowledge about firearms once
> >>>>>> again.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You go on and on about these terrible assault rifles that are
> >>>>>> "optimized for killing. Don't you realize that all firearms, from the
> >>>>>> very first "fire lance" developed in China more then 1000 years ago,
> >>>>>> were designed for, and logically optimized for, killing people?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No. Modern civilian rifles and shotguns are optimized for the game/target being shot. The biathalon rifle used by almost everyone is specifically optimized for skiing and shooting. Its 22 long rifle. Not much of a killer caliber. But they just shoot at metal disks. Shotguns are optimized for the birds being shot. And their choke is adjusted to fit how far away the targets will be when encountered. Small birds are OK with 410 or 28 gauge. Less powerful. But big birds such as pheasants will want a 12 gauge or at worst a 20 gauge. Skeet shooters shoot clay disks flying through the sky. Their over/under shotguns are 12 gauge and optimized for breaking the clay pigeons. And with hunting rifles, the bolt action is preferred by most. Accurate and can be made in all calibers on earth. Big caliber for shooting buffaloes or elephants in Africa. Smaller 22 or 30 calibers for deer in the US. And their are bigger cartridges for bigger game such as bear or moose. Optimized by
> >>>> caliber for the game being shot.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 22 caliber rifle firearms are optimized for practice essentially. Plinking. Or for kids to learn how to shoot a firearm. I have a couple 22 rifles available to use. Shooting opossums or raccoons. Not killing people.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The fact is Frank that you really don't know anything at all about
> >>>>>> firearms and are speaking from a position of overwhelming ignorance.
> >>>>>> Your entire "claim to fame" in the gun question seems to be, "Oh yes,
> >>>>>> I fired one, once".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And yes, you don't like them, one might even, from your writing,
> >>>>>> believe that you fear them, but, again from your writing, you
> >>>>>> certainly don't have any real knowledge of them.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So lets just leave it at that. You are ranting and raving about a
> >>>>>> subject which you know, literally, nothing (yes, I know you shot one
> >>>>>> once) about.
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> John B.
> >>>> I can't comment on 'intent' but for many years the #1 round
> >>>> for wounds/deaths in USA was .22LR. And .22 rifles dominated
> >>>> other long arms as a group. (I suspect mostly negligent as
> >>>> people are less safety conscious with a 'mere' .22 but I
> >>>> don't know that.)
> >>> Many outright murders are actually assassinations and the .22 is the prefered weapon of assasins because it makes so little sound. As for long rifles - these were used by kids to learn to shoot and farmers etc, for meat such as rabbits and squirrels. Being the most common guns would imply why the most injuries and deths accidental or not were caused by that weapon.
> >>>
> >>> Didn't I see someone write that a 22 caliber wass never used in war? The NATO round is .223 caliber and was used throughout the middle eastern wars. This is because these fights were all close actions and carrying more ammo was more important than long range accuracy which suffers since the lighter bullet is more effected by wind.
> >>>
> >>> The M1B is a clip fed .308 which is the same bullet but a shorter cartrige than the 30-06
> >>
> >> Tommy, you not being knowledgeable, you conflate the .223/5.56mm NATO round (centerfire) used by many militaries around the world, since the 1960s, with the .22 Long Rifle or Long or Short rimfire round used in many rifles in the USA. And a few pistols too. The DIAMETER is about the same. .22 inches more or less. But the bullet weight (40 grain or 62 grain), amount of lead, and the shell casing and the amount of powder in the casing are VASTLY different. The muzzle velocity and muzzle energy are VASTLY different too. 3240 fps and 1282 ft lb for the .223. And 1200 fps and 120 ft lb for the 22 Long Rifle.
> >>
> >> Kind of like a regulation barbell weighs 45 pounds. Add two 5 pound weights to either side and it is 55 pounds. A bushel of shelled corn is 56 pounds in its paper bag. Assuming your are buying bags of seed corn. Identical weight more or less. But not when you try to pick them up and move them around. A 55 pound barbell and a 56 pound bag of corn are different. Kind of like a .22 rimfire cartridge and a .223/5.56mm NATO round are different. Despite both having a diameter of .22 inches.
> >>
> >
> >More convoluted than I imagined. Not only the Navy .308:
> >
> >https://www.firearmsoutletcanada.com/springfield-m1-garand-rifle-w-plano-hardcase--308-win--24--surplus.html
> Interesting. $2,000 for an old, outmoded, army rifle... Which I
> believe the CMP is flogging for $650 (:-)
>
> As an aside, my father bought a Springfield '03, in what I would call
> very good condition for some ridiculously cheap price. I don't really
> remember but I'd guess in the 10-15 dollar range.
>
> Tell me, is $650, today, in the same value range?
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

On Tue, 31 May 2022 21:07:26 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 7:00:32 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 5/31/2022 5:48 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 10:15:21 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 5:48:36 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> >>> On 5/30/2022 11:56 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >>>> On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 6:22:39 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >>>>> On Mon, 30 May 2022 11:24:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> >>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> On 5/29/2022 11:52 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >>>>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 22:54:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> >>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On 5/29/2022 6:30 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 10:57:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> >>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/28/2022 10:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> The only legal "assault rifles" to use the common term are restricted
>> >>>>>>>>>>> to "semi automatic", i.e., they fire once every time you pull the
>> >>>>>>>>>>> trigger. This system dates back to1895 in rifles and semi automatic
>> >>>>>>>>>>> pistols seem to date back to the 1800's also. Short barrel, "carbine"
>> >>>>>>>>>>> sort of thing. I can't find a specific date for first use but the term
>> >>>>>>>>>>> seems to dates back to the 1600's. Pistol grip? The first I can find
>> >>>>>>>>>>> is the Delvigne, patented in 1840. Large magazines.. The Henry Rifle,
>> >>>>>>>>>>> patented in 1860 had a 15 round magazine.
>> >>>>>>>>>> You should give a list of mass shootings in which the Henry rifle was
>> >>>>>>>>>> the main weapon used. That would really buttress your argument, wouldn't
>> >>>>>>>>>> it?
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Conversely, failure to provide such a list would indicate how weak your
>> >>>>>>>>>> points are.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Good on yuh Frank. A nice end run about my dissertation pointing out
>> >>>>>>>>> that all your claims to modern rifles being, what was the word you
>> >>>>>>>>> used? Optimized for man killing? When in fact every thing about them
>> >>>>>>>>> is copied from weapons that have been available for a hundred years or
>> >>>>>>>>> more.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Show me a hundred year old rifle that weighs less than ten pounds and
>> >>>>>>>> can fire four or five rounds in one second. And that can be easily
>> >>>>>>>> fitted with a 50 round magazine. (While you're at it, explain why a
>> >>>>>>>> non-military person needs such capability. What are the advantages?)
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> But Frank, you kept going on and on about optimized for killing. I was
>> >>>>>>> simply demonstrating that WOW! Here is a gun optimized for killing way
>> >>>>>>> back in 1903 and used for that purpose for 50 years or more. Don't
>> >>>>>>> deaths before, well say 1989 when the first "assault rifle, an AK-47,
>> >>>>>>> was used to kill civilians, count?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Watch the Jim Jeffries videos again. The 1770's muskets were optimized
>> >>>>>> for killing. If that design was what gun fetishists wanted today, we'd
>> >>>>>> have far fewer problems and roughly zero mass murders. Technology makes
>> >>>>>> a difference.
>> >>>>> Frank, you are a fool.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Yes the 1779's muskets were optimized for killing. Of course they
>> >>>>> were. Or do you some how think that military weapons and tactics were
>> >>>>> somehow foolish simply because they don't match modern fancies?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> A an example, in the earlier days smooth bore "muskets" were the
>> >>>>> preferred infantry fire arm although the much more accurate "rifle"
>> >>>>> was invented in 1498. Evidence of the suddenness of the military. Not
>> >>>>> hardly. The musket could be loaded very quickly, four shots per
>> >>>>> minute, while the rifle took at least twice as long and as a battle
>> >>>>> progressed and the rifle became more and more "fouled" with powder
>> >>>>> residue even longer to load.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> So Frank, you exhibit your lack of knowledge about firearms once
>> >>>>> again.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> You go on and on about these terrible assault rifles that are
>> >>>>> "optimized for killing. Don't you realize that all firearms, from the
>> >>>>> very first "fire lance" developed in China more then 1000 years ago,
>> >>>>> were designed for, and logically optimized for, killing people?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> No. Modern civilian rifles and shotguns are optimized for the game/target being shot. The biathalon rifle used by almost everyone is specifically optimized for skiing and shooting. Its 22 long rifle. Not much of a killer caliber. But they just shoot at metal disks. Shotguns are optimized for the birds being shot. And their choke is adjusted to fit how far away the targets will be when encountered. Small birds are OK with 410 or 28 gauge. Less powerful. But big birds such as pheasants will want a 12 gauge or at worst a 20 gauge. Skeet shooters shoot clay disks flying through the sky. Their over/under shotguns are 12 gauge and optimized for breaking the clay pigeons. And with hunting rifles, the bolt action is preferred by most. Accurate and can be made in all calibers on earth. Big caliber for shooting buffaloes or elephants in Africa. Smaller 22 or 30 calibers for deer in the US. And their are bigger cartridges for bigger game such as bear or moose. Optimized by
>> >>> caliber for the game being shot.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 22 caliber rifle firearms are optimized for practice essentially. Plinking. Or for kids to learn how to shoot a firearm. I have a couple 22 rifles available to use. Shooting opossums or raccoons. Not killing people.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The fact is Frank that you really don't know anything at all about
>> >>>>> firearms and are speaking from a position of overwhelming ignorance.
>> >>>>> Your entire "claim to fame" in the gun question seems to be, "Oh yes,
>> >>>>> I fired one, once".
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> And yes, you don't like them, one might even, from your writing,
>> >>>>> believe that you fear them, but, again from your writing, you
>> >>>>> certainly don't have any real knowledge of them.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> So lets just leave it at that. You are ranting and raving about a
>> >>>>> subject which you know, literally, nothing (yes, I know you shot one
>> >>>>> once) about.
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>> Cheers,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> John B.
>> >>> I can't comment on 'intent' but for many years the #1 round
>> >>> for wounds/deaths in USA was .22LR. And .22 rifles dominated
>> >>> other long arms as a group. (I suspect mostly negligent as
>> >>> people are less safety conscious with a 'mere' .22 but I
>> >>> don't know that.)
>> >> Many outright murders are actually assassinations and the .22 is the prefered weapon of assasins because it makes so little sound. As for long rifles - these were used by kids to learn to shoot and farmers etc, for meat such as rabbits and squirrels. Being the most common guns would imply why the most injuries and deths accidental or not were caused by that weapon.
>> >>
>> >> Didn't I see someone write that a 22 caliber wass never used in war? The NATO round is .223 caliber and was used throughout the middle eastern wars. This is because these fights were all close actions and carrying more ammo was more important than long range accuracy which suffers since the lighter bullet is more effected by wind.
>> >>
>> >> The M1B is a clip fed .308 which is the same bullet but a shorter cartrige than the 30-06
>> >
>> > Tommy, you not being knowledgeable, you conflate the .223/5.56mm NATO round (centerfire) used by many militaries around the world, since the 1960s, with the .22 Long Rifle or Long or Short rimfire round used in many rifles in the USA. And a few pistols too. The DIAMETER is about the same. .22 inches more or less. But the bullet weight (40 grain or 62 grain), amount of lead, and the shell casing and the amount of powder in the casing are VASTLY different. The muzzle velocity and muzzle energy are VASTLY different too. 3240 fps and 1282 ft lb for the .223. And 1200 fps and 120 ft lb for the 22 Long Rifle.
>> >
>> > Kind of like a regulation barbell weighs 45 pounds. Add two 5 pound weights to either side and it is 55 pounds. A bushel of shelled corn is 56 pounds in its paper bag. Assuming your are buying bags of seed corn. Identical weight more or less. But not when you try to pick them up and move them around. A 55 pound barbell and a 56 pound bag of corn are different. Kind of like a .22 rimfire cartridge and a .223/5.56mm NATO round are different. Despite both having a diameter of .22 inches.
>> >
>> More convoluted than I imagined. Not only the Navy .308:
>>
>> https://www.firearmsoutletcanada.com/springfield-m1-garand-rifle-w-plano-hardcase--308-win--24--surplus.html
>> --
>> Andrew Muzi
>> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>
>OK. I can believe that link you gave. Italy was using the new NATO round. Which is 7.62mm x 51mm I think is .308 Winchester. So they made an M1 Garand in 1952 with the new cartridge. I think we already talked about 30-06 and 308 Winchester being the same bullet, just different casing length. It was probably not a difficult process to change a few parts to get an M1 Garand in 308.
>
>But Andy, I am not convinced the old adults you were around in your youth bought surplus Italian M1 Garands and used them to hunt deer. In 308 Winchester. Now, I can believe that in the 1960s the Italian military did surplus their old M1 Garand rifles in 308. Afterall, that would be an old rifle by then. And being Italian, they had to have the newest and latest and most stylish rifle. Like their new Ferrari and new Giorgio Armani or Dolce Gabbana suits. Can't have a 15 year old time M1 Garand as a rifle. No no no.

On Tue, 31 May 2022 21:50:16 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 7:40:52 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 May 2022 19:00:28 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>> >On 5/31/2022 5:48 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 10:15:21 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>> On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 5:48:36 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> >>>> On 5/30/2022 11:56 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >>>>> On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 6:22:39 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Mon, 30 May 2022 11:24:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> >>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On 5/29/2022 11:52 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 22:54:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> >>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On 5/29/2022 6:30 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 10:57:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> >>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/28/2022 10:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The only legal "assault rifles" to use the common term are restricted
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> to "semi automatic", i.e., they fire once every time you pull the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> trigger. This system dates back to1895 in rifles and semi automatic
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> pistols seem to date back to the 1800's also. Short barrel, "carbine"
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> sort of thing. I can't find a specific date for first use but the term
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> seems to dates back to the 1600's. Pistol grip? The first I can find
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> is the Delvigne, patented in 1840. Large magazines.. The Henry Rifle,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> patented in 1860 had a 15 round magazine.
>> >>>>>>>>>>> You should give a list of mass shootings in which the Henry rifle was
>> >>>>>>>>>>> the main weapon used. That would really buttress your argument, wouldn't
>> >>>>>>>>>>> it?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Conversely, failure to provide such a list would indicate how weak your
>> >>>>>>>>>>> points are.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Good on yuh Frank. A nice end run about my dissertation pointing out
>> >>>>>>>>>> that all your claims to modern rifles being, what was the word you
>> >>>>>>>>>> used? Optimized for man killing? When in fact every thing about them
>> >>>>>>>>>> is copied from weapons that have been available for a hundred years or
>> >>>>>>>>>> more.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Show me a hundred year old rifle that weighs less than ten pounds and
>> >>>>>>>>> can fire four or five rounds in one second. And that can be easily
>> >>>>>>>>> fitted with a 50 round magazine. (While you're at it, explain why a
>> >>>>>>>>> non-military person needs such capability. What are the advantages?)
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> But Frank, you kept going on and on about optimized for killing. I was
>> >>>>>>>> simply demonstrating that WOW! Here is a gun optimized for killing way
>> >>>>>>>> back in 1903 and used for that purpose for 50 years or more. Don't
>> >>>>>>>> deaths before, well say 1989 when the first "assault rifle, an AK-47,
>> >>>>>>>> was used to kill civilians, count?
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Watch the Jim Jeffries videos again. The 1770's muskets were optimized
>> >>>>>>> for killing. If that design was what gun fetishists wanted today, we'd
>> >>>>>>> have far fewer problems and roughly zero mass murders. Technology makes
>> >>>>>>> a difference.
>> >>>>>> Frank, you are a fool.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Yes the 1779's muskets were optimized for killing. Of course they
>> >>>>>> were. Or do you some how think that military weapons and tactics were
>> >>>>>> somehow foolish simply because they don't match modern fancies?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> A an example, in the earlier days smooth bore "muskets" were the
>> >>>>>> preferred infantry fire arm although the much more accurate "rifle"
>> >>>>>> was invented in 1498. Evidence of the suddenness of the military. Not
>> >>>>>> hardly. The musket could be loaded very quickly, four shots per
>> >>>>>> minute, while the rifle took at least twice as long and as a battle
>> >>>>>> progressed and the rifle became more and more "fouled" with powder
>> >>>>>> residue even longer to load.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> So Frank, you exhibit your lack of knowledge about firearms once
>> >>>>>> again.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> You go on and on about these terrible assault rifles that are
>> >>>>>> "optimized for killing. Don't you realize that all firearms, from the
>> >>>>>> very first "fire lance" developed in China more then 1000 years ago,
>> >>>>>> were designed for, and logically optimized for, killing people?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> No. Modern civilian rifles and shotguns are optimized for the game/target being shot. The biathalon rifle used by almost everyone is specifically optimized for skiing and shooting. Its 22 long rifle. Not much of a killer caliber. But they just shoot at metal disks. Shotguns are optimized for the birds being shot. And their choke is adjusted to fit how far away the targets will be when encountered. Small birds are OK with 410 or 28 gauge. Less powerful. But big birds such as pheasants will want a 12 gauge or at worst a 20 gauge. Skeet shooters shoot clay disks flying through the sky. Their over/under shotguns are 12 gauge and optimized for breaking the clay pigeons. And with hunting rifles, the bolt action is preferred by most. Accurate and can be made in all calibers on earth. Big caliber for shooting buffaloes or elephants in Africa. Smaller 22 or 30 calibers for deer in the US. And their are bigger cartridges for bigger game such as bear or moose. Optimized by
>> >>>> caliber for the game being shot.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> 22 caliber rifle firearms are optimized for practice essentially. Plinking. Or for kids to learn how to shoot a firearm. I have a couple 22 rifles available to use. Shooting opossums or raccoons. Not killing people.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> The fact is Frank that you really don't know anything at all about
>> >>>>>> firearms and are speaking from a position of overwhelming ignorance.
>> >>>>>> Your entire "claim to fame" in the gun question seems to be, "Oh yes,
>> >>>>>> I fired one, once".
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> And yes, you don't like them, one might even, from your writing,
>> >>>>>> believe that you fear them, but, again from your writing, you
>> >>>>>> certainly don't have any real knowledge of them.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> So lets just leave it at that. You are ranting and raving about a
>> >>>>>> subject which you know, literally, nothing (yes, I know you shot one
>> >>>>>> once) about.
>> >>>>>> --
>> >>>>>> Cheers,
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> John B.
>> >>>> I can't comment on 'intent' but for many years the #1 round
>> >>>> for wounds/deaths in USA was .22LR. And .22 rifles dominated
>> >>>> other long arms as a group. (I suspect mostly negligent as
>> >>>> people are less safety conscious with a 'mere' .22 but I
>> >>>> don't know that.)
>> >>> Many outright murders are actually assassinations and the .22 is the prefered weapon of assasins because it makes so little sound. As for long rifles - these were used by kids to learn to shoot and farmers etc, for meat such as rabbits and squirrels. Being the most common guns would imply why the most injuries and deths accidental or not were caused by that weapon.
>> >>>
>> >>> Didn't I see someone write that a 22 caliber wass never used in war? The NATO round is .223 caliber and was used throughout the middle eastern wars. This is because these fights were all close actions and carrying more ammo was more important than long range accuracy which suffers since the lighter bullet is more effected by wind.
>> >>>
>> >>> The M1B is a clip fed .308 which is the same bullet but a shorter cartrige than the 30-06
>> >>
>> >> Tommy, you not being knowledgeable, you conflate the .223/5.56mm NATO round (centerfire) used by many militaries around the world, since the 1960s, with the .22 Long Rifle or Long or Short rimfire round used in many rifles in the USA. And a few pistols too. The DIAMETER is about the same. .22 inches more or less. But the bullet weight (40 grain or 62 grain), amount of lead, and the shell casing and the amount of powder in the casing are VASTLY different. The muzzle velocity and muzzle energy are VASTLY different too. 3240 fps and 1282 ft lb for the .223. And 1200 fps and 120 ft lb for the 22 Long Rifle.
>> >>
>> >> Kind of like a regulation barbell weighs 45 pounds. Add two 5 pound weights to either side and it is 55 pounds. A bushel of shelled corn is 56 pounds in its paper bag. Assuming your are buying bags of seed corn. Identical weight more or less. But not when you try to pick them up and move them around. A 55 pound barbell and a 56 pound bag of corn are different. Kind of like a .22 rimfire cartridge and a .223/5.56mm NATO round are different. Despite both having a diameter of .22 inches.
>> >>
>> >
>> >More convoluted than I imagined. Not only the Navy .308:
>> >
>> >https://www.firearmsoutletcanada.com/springfield-m1-garand-rifle-w-plano-hardcase--308-win--24--surplus.html
>> Interesting. $2,000 for an old, outmoded, army rifle... Which I
>> believe the CMP is flogging for $650 (:-)
>>
>> As an aside, my father bought a Springfield '03, in what I would call
>> very good condition for some ridiculously cheap price. I don't really
>> remember but I'd guess in the 10-15 dollar range.
>>
>> Tell me, is $650, today, in the same value range?
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
>Today Ruger sells its Mini 14 semi auto rifle. $1200-1400. Its kind of a short barrel M1 Garand. .223/5.56 NATO. Not 30-06 caliber. Browning makes its BAR semi auto rifle. Several calibers. $1200-1500. I don't think there are any other USA manufacturers of semi auto bigger caliber rifles. I'm sure there are some European makers. But $650 for a used semi auto high caliber rifle seems to be a good price compared to new models. Half price. But $2000 for the one from Canada or the Italian one Andy listed seems a bit high. You're buying nostalgia. Not function. There are also a few non discontinued American made semi auto rifles in the bigger calibers. They would likely be in the $650 or lower range for price. So $650 today is not outrageous for the CMP rifles. But you are not getting the bargain your father got with his 1903 Springfield.

On 5/31/2022 11:07 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 7:00:32 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 5/31/2022 5:48 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 10:15:21 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 5:48:36 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 5/30/2022 11:56 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 6:22:39 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 May 2022 11:24:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/29/2022 11:52 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 22:54:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/29/2022 6:30 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 10:57:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/28/2022 10:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only legal "assault rifles" to use the common term are restricted
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to "semi automatic", i.e., they fire once every time you pull the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> trigger. This system dates back to1895 in rifles and semi automatic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pistols seem to date back to the 1800's also. Short barrel, "carbine"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sort of thing. I can't find a specific date for first use but the term
>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to dates back to the 1600's. Pistol grip? The first I can find
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the Delvigne, patented in 1840. Large magazines.. The Henry Rifle,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> patented in 1860 had a 15 round magazine.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You should give a list of mass shootings in which the Henry rifle was
>>>>>>>>>>>> the main weapon used. That would really buttress your argument, wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Conversely, failure to provide such a list would indicate how weak your
>>>>>>>>>>>> points are.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Good on yuh Frank. A nice end run about my dissertation pointing out
>>>>>>>>>>> that all your claims to modern rifles being, what was the word you
>>>>>>>>>>> used? Optimized for man killing? When in fact every thing about them
>>>>>>>>>>> is copied from weapons that have been available for a hundred years or
>>>>>>>>>>> more.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Show me a hundred year old rifle that weighs less than ten pounds and
>>>>>>>>>> can fire four or five rounds in one second. And that can be easily
>>>>>>>>>> fitted with a 50 round magazine. (While you're at it, explain why a
>>>>>>>>>> non-military person needs such capability. What are the advantages?)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But Frank, you kept going on and on about optimized for killing. I was
>>>>>>>>> simply demonstrating that WOW! Here is a gun optimized for killing way
>>>>>>>>> back in 1903 and used for that purpose for 50 years or more. Don't
>>>>>>>>> deaths before, well say 1989 when the first "assault rifle, an AK-47,
>>>>>>>>> was used to kill civilians, count?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Watch the Jim Jeffries videos again. The 1770's muskets were optimized
>>>>>>>> for killing. If that design was what gun fetishists wanted today, we'd
>>>>>>>> have far fewer problems and roughly zero mass murders. Technology makes
>>>>>>>> a difference.
>>>>>>> Frank, you are a fool.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes the 1779's muskets were optimized for killing. Of course they
>>>>>>> were. Or do you some how think that military weapons and tactics were
>>>>>>> somehow foolish simply because they don't match modern fancies?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A an example, in the earlier days smooth bore "muskets" were the
>>>>>>> preferred infantry fire arm although the much more accurate "rifle"
>>>>>>> was invented in 1498. Evidence of the suddenness of the military. Not
>>>>>>> hardly. The musket could be loaded very quickly, four shots per
>>>>>>> minute, while the rifle took at least twice as long and as a battle
>>>>>>> progressed and the rifle became more and more "fouled" with powder
>>>>>>> residue even longer to load.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So Frank, you exhibit your lack of knowledge about firearms once
>>>>>>> again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You go on and on about these terrible assault rifles that are
>>>>>>> "optimized for killing. Don't you realize that all firearms, from the
>>>>>>> very first "fire lance" developed in China more then 1000 years ago,
>>>>>>> were designed for, and logically optimized for, killing people?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. Modern civilian rifles and shotguns are optimized for the game/target being shot. The biathalon rifle used by almost everyone is specifically optimized for skiing and shooting. Its 22 long rifle. Not much of a killer caliber. But they just shoot at metal disks. Shotguns are optimized for the birds being shot. And their choke is adjusted to fit how far away the targets will be when encountered. Small birds are OK with 410 or 28 gauge. Less powerful. But big birds such as pheasants will want a 12 gauge or at worst a 20 gauge. Skeet shooters shoot clay disks flying through the sky. Their over/under shotguns are 12 gauge and optimized for breaking the clay pigeons. And with hunting rifles, the bolt action is preferred by most. Accurate and can be made in all calibers on earth. Big caliber for shooting buffaloes or elephants in Africa. Smaller 22 or 30 calibers for deer in the US. And their are bigger cartridges for bigger game such as bear or moose. Optimized by
>>>>> caliber for the game being shot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 22 caliber rifle firearms are optimized for practice essentially. Plinking. Or for kids to learn how to shoot a firearm. I have a couple 22 rifles available to use. Shooting opossums or raccoons. Not killing people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact is Frank that you really don't know anything at all about
>>>>>>> firearms and are speaking from a position of overwhelming ignorance.
>>>>>>> Your entire "claim to fame" in the gun question seems to be, "Oh yes,
>>>>>>> I fired one, once".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And yes, you don't like them, one might even, from your writing,
>>>>>>> believe that you fear them, but, again from your writing, you
>>>>>>> certainly don't have any real knowledge of them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So lets just leave it at that. You are ranting and raving about a
>>>>>>> subject which you know, literally, nothing (yes, I know you shot one
>>>>>>> once) about.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John B.
>>>>> I can't comment on 'intent' but for many years the #1 round
>>>>> for wounds/deaths in USA was .22LR. And .22 rifles dominated
>>>>> other long arms as a group. (I suspect mostly negligent as
>>>>> people are less safety conscious with a 'mere' .22 but I
>>>>> don't know that.)
>>>> Many outright murders are actually assassinations and the .22 is the prefered weapon of assasins because it makes so little sound. As for long rifles - these were used by kids to learn to shoot and farmers etc, for meat such as rabbits and squirrels. Being the most common guns would imply why the most injuries and deths accidental or not were caused by that weapon.
>>>>
>>>> Didn't I see someone write that a 22 caliber wass never used in war? The NATO round is .223 caliber and was used throughout the middle eastern wars. This is because these fights were all close actions and carrying more ammo was more important than long range accuracy which suffers since the lighter bullet is more effected by wind.
>>>>
>>>> The M1B is a clip fed .308 which is the same bullet but a shorter cartrige than the 30-06
>>>
>>> Tommy, you not being knowledgeable, you conflate the .223/5.56mm NATO round (centerfire) used by many militaries around the world, since the 1960s, with the .22 Long Rifle or Long or Short rimfire round used in many rifles in the USA. And a few pistols too. The DIAMETER is about the same. .22 inches more or less. But the bullet weight (40 grain or 62 grain), amount of lead, and the shell casing and the amount of powder in the casing are VASTLY different. The muzzle velocity and muzzle energy are VASTLY different too. 3240 fps and 1282 ft lb for the .223. And 1200 fps and 120 ft lb for the 22 Long Rifle.
>>>
>>> Kind of like a regulation barbell weighs 45 pounds. Add two 5 pound weights to either side and it is 55 pounds. A bushel of shelled corn is 56 pounds in its paper bag. Assuming your are buying bags of seed corn. Identical weight more or less. But not when you try to pick them up and move them around. A 55 pound barbell and a 56 pound bag of corn are different. Kind of like a .22 rimfire cartridge and a .223/5.56mm NATO round are different. Despite both having a diameter of .22 inches.
>>>
>> More convoluted than I imagined. Not only the Navy .308:
>>
>> https://www.firearmsoutletcanada.com/springfield-m1-garand-rifle-w-plano-hardcase--308-win--24--surplus.html
>
> OK. I can believe that link you gave. Italy was using the new NATO round. Which is 7.62mm x 51mm I think is .308 Winchester. So they made an M1 Garand in 1952 with the new cartridge. I think we already talked about 30-06 and 308 Winchester being the same bullet, just different casing length. It was probably not a difficult process to change a few parts to get an M1 Garand in 308.
>
> But Andy, I am not convinced the old adults you were around in your youth bought surplus Italian M1 Garands and used them to hunt deer. In 308 Winchester. Now, I can believe that in the 1960s the Italian military did surplus their old M1 Garand rifles in 308. Afterall, that would be an old rifle by then. And being Italian, they had to have the newest and latest and most stylish rifle. Like their new Ferrari and new Giorgio Armani or Dolce Gabbana suits. Can't have a 15 year old time M1 Garand as a rifle. No no no.

On 6/1/2022 1:26 AM, John B. wrote:
>
>
> Back in the day, I can't remember ever seeing a semi-automatic hunting
> rifle, at least not one being shot. A friend's father had a Remington
> Model 81, "wood master" or some such name. I remember seeing it on a
> gun rack in his father's den and thought it was sort of ungainly
> looking.
>
> But re automatic rifles. My grandfather, my father and I all hunted
> deer, in New Hampshire, over the years, and mostly they were "one
> shot, one deer". I remember my granddad showing me a 20 round box of
> 38-55 cartridges that he said he'd been using for 10 years... there
> were 10 cartridges left (:-)

So can we finally put to rest the silly argument that AR-15s and the
like are appropriate for hunting deer?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 6/1/2022 9:34 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 6/1/2022 1:26 AM, John B. wrote:
>>
>>
>> Back in the day, I can't remember ever seeing a
>> semi-automatic hunting
>> rifle, at least not one being shot. A friend's father had
>> a Remington
>> Model 81, "wood master" or some such name. I remember
>> seeing it on a
>> gun rack in his father's den and thought it was sort of
>> ungainly
>> looking.
>>
>> But re automatic rifles. My grandfather, my father and I
>> all hunted
>> deer, in New Hampshire, over the years, and mostly they
>> were "one
>> shot, one deer". I remember my granddad showing me a 20
>> round box of
>> 38-55 cartridges that he said he'd been using for 10
>> years... there
>> were 10 cartridges left (:-)
>
> So can we finally put to rest the silly argument that AR-15s
> and the like are appropriate for hunting deer?
>
>
https://www.at3tactical.com/blogs/news/using-an-ar-15-for-hunting

Concludes excellent for feral hogs, limited by range for deer.

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

On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 7:44:55 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 6/1/2022 9:34 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 6/1/2022 1:26 AM, John B. wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Back in the day, I can't remember ever seeing a
> >> semi-automatic hunting
> >> rifle, at least not one being shot. A friend's father had
> >> a Remington
> >> Model 81, "wood master" or some such name. I remember
> >> seeing it on a
> >> gun rack in his father's den and thought it was sort of
> >> ungainly
> >> looking.
> >>
> >> But re automatic rifles. My grandfather, my father and I
> >> all hunted
> >> deer, in New Hampshire, over the years, and mostly they
> >> were "one
> >> shot, one deer". I remember my granddad showing me a 20
> >> round box of
> >> 38-55 cartridges that he said he'd been using for 10
> >> years... there
> >> were 10 cartridges left (:-)
> >
> > So can we finally put to rest the silly argument that AR-15s
> > and the like are appropriate for hunting deer?
> >
> >
> https://www.at3tactical.com/blogs/news/using-an-ar-15-for-hunting
>
> Concludes excellent for feral hogs, limited by range for deer.

Why do you suppose that people who are so afraid of guns that they have never owned one always have the greatest knowledge of what they are good for? I haver hunted deer with a .22 LR. You have to be accurate with a round like that which doesn't have a great deal of energy. But Frank wants to tell you that a round with 8 times the energy isn't good for hunting?

On 6/1/2022 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 6/1/2022 9:34 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 6/1/2022 1:26 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Back in the day, I can't remember ever seeing a
>>> semi-automatic hunting
>>> rifle, at least not one being shot. A friend's father had
>>> a Remington
>>> Model 81, "wood master" or some such name. I remember
>>> seeing it on a
>>> gun rack in his father's den and thought it was sort of
>>> ungainly
>>> looking.
>>>
>>> But re automatic rifles. My grandfather, my father and I
>>> all hunted
>>> deer, in New Hampshire, over the years, and mostly they
>>> were "one
>>> shot, one deer". I remember my granddad showing me a 20
>>> round box of
>>> 38-55 cartridges that he said he'd been using for 10
>>> years... there
>>> were 10 cartridges left (:-)
>>
>> So can we finally put to rest the silly argument that AR-15s
>> and the like are appropriate for hunting deer?
>>
>>
> https://www.at3tactical.com/blogs/news/using-an-ar-15-for-hunting
>
> Concludes excellent for feral hogs, limited by range for deer.

Again, click bait for AR fetishists looking to justify their toy.

From that site: "The same rifle that will allow you to hunt can also be
used for training on the range, or plinking, and the rifles also are a
go-to for self-defense."

Give me a break! Any gun can be used for "training on the range" or
"plinking." And who in hell needs an AR for self defense? Are they
defending themselves from infantry attack? How often does that happen?
It's "Call of Duty" gaming fantasy!

There are many other choices that allow killing pigs without killing
kids, shoppers, concert goers, etc.

https://thebiggamehuntingblog.com/best-hog-hunting-guns/

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 6/1/2022 11:02 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> Why do you suppose that people who are so afraid of guns that they have never owned one always have the greatest knowledge of what they are good for? I haver hunted deer with a .22 LR. You have to be accurate with a round like that which doesn't have a great deal of energy.

Nobody with any sense hunts deer with a .22LR. It's universally
considered unethical.

Tell us about your excellent accuracy. Did you take your .22 deer with a
heart shot? Did it drop instantaneously?

IOW, lay it on thick.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 11:48:58 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 6/1/2022 11:02 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>> Why do you suppose that people who are so afraid of guns that they have never owned one always have the greatest knowledge of what they are good for? I haver hunted deer with a .22 LR. You have to be accurate with a round like that which doesn't have a great deal of energy.
>
>Nobody with any sense hunts deer with a .22LR. It's universally
>considered unethical.
>
>Tell us about your excellent accuracy. Did you take your .22 deer with a
>heart shot? Did it drop instantaneously?
>
>IOW, lay it on thick.

https://www.hsa.org.uk/humane-killing-of-livestock-using-firearms-equipment/rifle
2nd paragraph

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 10:34:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 6/1/2022 1:26 AM, John B. wrote:
>>
>>
>> Back in the day, I can't remember ever seeing a semi-automatic hunting
>> rifle, at least not one being shot. A friend's father had a Remington
>> Model 81, "wood master" or some such name. I remember seeing it on a
>> gun rack in his father's den and thought it was sort of ungainly
>> looking.
>>
>> But re automatic rifles. My grandfather, my father and I all hunted
>> deer, in New Hampshire, over the years, and mostly they were "one
>> shot, one deer". I remember my granddad showing me a 20 round box of
>> 38-55 cartridges that he said he'd been using for 10 years... there
>> were 10 cartridges left (:-)
>
>So can we finally put to rest the silly argument that AR-15s and the
>like are appropriate for hunting deer?

And once again ignorance is flaunted.

Well, my grandfather was born in 1883 and started hunting when he was
a young man. No AR's were available.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 01 Jun 2022 09:44:50 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 6/1/2022 9:34 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 6/1/2022 1:26 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Back in the day, I can't remember ever seeing a
>>> semi-automatic hunting
>>> rifle, at least not one being shot. A friend's father had
>>> a Remington
>>> Model 81, "wood master" or some such name. I remember
>>> seeing it on a
>>> gun rack in his father's den and thought it was sort of
>>> ungainly
>>> looking.
>>>
>>> But re automatic rifles. My grandfather, my father and I
>>> all hunted
>>> deer, in New Hampshire, over the years, and mostly they
>>> were "one
>>> shot, one deer". I remember my granddad showing me a 20
>>> round box of
>>> 38-55 cartridges that he said he'd been using for 10
>>> years... there
>>> were 10 cartridges left (:-)
>>
>> So can we finally put to rest the silly argument that AR-15s
>> and the like are appropriate for hunting deer?
>>
>>
>https://www.at3tactical.com/blogs/news/using-an-ar-15-for-hunting
>
>Concludes excellent for feral hogs, limited by range for deer.

I had some sort of "Uncle", on my mother's side of the family who
lived out in the woods somewhere and ate venison (deer meat) year
round. Killed them with a .22 rim fire rifle. Said something like,
"why not when it works?"
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 11:35:45 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 6/1/2022 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 6/1/2022 9:34 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 6/1/2022 1:26 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Back in the day, I can't remember ever seeing a
>>>> semi-automatic hunting
>>>> rifle, at least not one being shot. A friend's father had
>>>> a Remington
>>>> Model 81, "wood master" or some such name. I remember
>>>> seeing it on a
>>>> gun rack in his father's den and thought it was sort of
>>>> ungainly
>>>> looking.
>>>>
>>>> But re automatic rifles. My grandfather, my father and I
>>>> all hunted
>>>> deer, in New Hampshire, over the years, and mostly they
>>>> were "one
>>>> shot, one deer". I remember my granddad showing me a 20
>>>> round box of
>>>> 38-55 cartridges that he said he'd been using for 10
>>>> years... there
>>>> were 10 cartridges left (:-)
>>>
>>> So can we finally put to rest the silly argument that AR-15s
>>> and the like are appropriate for hunting deer?
>>>
>>>
>> https://www.at3tactical.com/blogs/news/using-an-ar-15-for-hunting
>>
>> Concludes excellent for feral hogs, limited by range for deer.
>
>Again, click bait for AR fetishists looking to justify their toy.
>
> From that site: "The same rifle that will allow you to hunt can also be
>used for training on the range, or plinking, and the rifles also are a
>go-to for self-defense."
>
>Give me a break! Any gun can be used for "training on the range" or
>"plinking." And who in hell needs an AR for self defense? Are they
>defending themselves from infantry attack? How often does that happen?
>It's "Call of Duty" gaming fantasy!
>
>There are many other choices that allow killing pigs without killing
>kids, shoppers, concert goers, etc.
>
>https://thebiggamehuntingblog.com/best-hog-hunting-guns/

And again the indomitable Frank flaunts his ignorance.

" Any gun can be used for "training on the range" Totally incorrect.

The course of fire for small bore (.22 rim fire) matches is totally
different from "big bore" matches. The range is different, "small
bore" matches are frequently fired indoors while big bore is
"outdoors".

Certainly the ignorant may cry, "what's the difference" which may
sound intelligent until the wind starts blowing.

And finally, there is the recoil. Shooting a .22 that just sort of
lays there and goes bang is totally different then, say a 30-06 which
goes bang and gives you a good firm nudge on the shoulder.

But I suppose, to paraphrase someone or another, "The ignorant do rush
in where the intelligent fear to tread".
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 01 Jun 2022 07:38:47 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 5/31/2022 11:07 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 7:00:32 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 5/31/2022 5:48 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 10:15:21 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 5:48:36 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/30/2022 11:56 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 6:22:39 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 May 2022 11:24:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/29/2022 11:52 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 22:54:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/29/2022 6:30 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 10:57:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/28/2022 10:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only legal "assault rifles" to use the common term are restricted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to "semi automatic", i.e., they fire once every time you pull the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trigger. This system dates back to1895 in rifles and semi automatic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pistols seem to date back to the 1800's also. Short barrel, "carbine"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sort of thing. I can't find a specific date for first use but the term
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to dates back to the 1600's. Pistol grip? The first I can find
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the Delvigne, patented in 1840. Large magazines.. The Henry Rifle,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patented in 1860 had a 15 round magazine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should give a list of mass shootings in which the Henry rifle was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the main weapon used. That would really buttress your argument, wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conversely, failure to provide such a list would indicate how weak your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> points are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Good on yuh Frank. A nice end run about my dissertation pointing out
>>>>>>>>>>>> that all your claims to modern rifles being, what was the word you
>>>>>>>>>>>> used? Optimized for man killing? When in fact every thing about them
>>>>>>>>>>>> is copied from weapons that have been available for a hundred years or
>>>>>>>>>>>> more.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Show me a hundred year old rifle that weighs less than ten pounds and
>>>>>>>>>>> can fire four or five rounds in one second. And that can be easily
>>>>>>>>>>> fitted with a 50 round magazine. (While you're at it, explain why a
>>>>>>>>>>> non-military person needs such capability. What are the advantages?)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But Frank, you kept going on and on about optimized for killing. I was
>>>>>>>>>> simply demonstrating that WOW! Here is a gun optimized for killing way
>>>>>>>>>> back in 1903 and used for that purpose for 50 years or more. Don't
>>>>>>>>>> deaths before, well say 1989 when the first "assault rifle, an AK-47,
>>>>>>>>>> was used to kill civilians, count?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Watch the Jim Jeffries videos again. The 1770's muskets were optimized
>>>>>>>>> for killing. If that design was what gun fetishists wanted today, we'd
>>>>>>>>> have far fewer problems and roughly zero mass murders. Technology makes
>>>>>>>>> a difference.
>>>>>>>> Frank, you are a fool.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes the 1779's muskets were optimized for killing. Of course they
>>>>>>>> were. Or do you some how think that military weapons and tactics were
>>>>>>>> somehow foolish simply because they don't match modern fancies?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A an example, in the earlier days smooth bore "muskets" were the
>>>>>>>> preferred infantry fire arm although the much more accurate "rifle"
>>>>>>>> was invented in 1498. Evidence of the suddenness of the military. Not
>>>>>>>> hardly. The musket could be loaded very quickly, four shots per
>>>>>>>> minute, while the rifle took at least twice as long and as a battle
>>>>>>>> progressed and the rifle became more and more "fouled" with powder
>>>>>>>> residue even longer to load.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So Frank, you exhibit your lack of knowledge about firearms once
>>>>>>>> again.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You go on and on about these terrible assault rifles that are
>>>>>>>> "optimized for killing. Don't you realize that all firearms, from the
>>>>>>>> very first "fire lance" developed in China more then 1000 years ago,
>>>>>>>> were designed for, and logically optimized for, killing people?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No. Modern civilian rifles and shotguns are optimized for the game/target being shot. The biathalon rifle used by almost everyone is specifically optimized for skiing and shooting. Its 22 long rifle. Not much of a killer caliber. But they just shoot at metal disks. Shotguns are optimized for the birds being shot. And their choke is adjusted to fit how far away the targets will be when encountered. Small birds are OK with 410 or 28 gauge. Less powerful. But big birds such as pheasants will want a 12 gauge or at worst a 20 gauge. Skeet shooters shoot clay disks flying through the sky. Their over/under shotguns are 12 gauge and optimized for breaking the clay pigeons. And with hunting rifles, the bolt action is preferred by most. Accurate and can be made in all calibers on earth. Big caliber for shooting buffaloes or elephants in Africa. Smaller 22 or 30 calibers for deer in the US. And their are bigger cartridges for bigger game such as bear or moose. Optimized by
>>>>>> caliber for the game being shot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 22 caliber rifle firearms are optimized for practice essentially. Plinking. Or for kids to learn how to shoot a firearm. I have a couple 22 rifles available to use. Shooting opossums or raccoons. Not killing people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fact is Frank that you really don't know anything at all about
>>>>>>>> firearms and are speaking from a position of overwhelming ignorance.
>>>>>>>> Your entire "claim to fame" in the gun question seems to be, "Oh yes,
>>>>>>>> I fired one, once".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And yes, you don't like them, one might even, from your writing,
>>>>>>>> believe that you fear them, but, again from your writing, you
>>>>>>>> certainly don't have any real knowledge of them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So lets just leave it at that. You are ranting and raving about a
>>>>>>>> subject which you know, literally, nothing (yes, I know you shot one
>>>>>>>> once) about.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>> I can't comment on 'intent' but for many years the #1 round
>>>>>> for wounds/deaths in USA was .22LR. And .22 rifles dominated
>>>>>> other long arms as a group. (I suspect mostly negligent as
>>>>>> people are less safety conscious with a 'mere' .22 but I
>>>>>> don't know that.)
>>>>> Many outright murders are actually assassinations and the .22 is the prefered weapon of assasins because it makes so little sound. As for long rifles - these were used by kids to learn to shoot and farmers etc, for meat such as rabbits and squirrels. Being the most common guns would imply why the most injuries and deths accidental or not were caused by that weapon.
>>>>>
>>>>> Didn't I see someone write that a 22 caliber wass never used in war? The NATO round is .223 caliber and was used throughout the middle eastern wars. This is because these fights were all close actions and carrying more ammo was more important than long range accuracy which suffers since the lighter bullet is more effected by wind.
>>>>>
>>>>> The M1B is a clip fed .308 which is the same bullet but a shorter cartrige than the 30-06
>>>>
>>>> Tommy, you not being knowledgeable, you conflate the .223/5.56mm NATO round (centerfire) used by many militaries around the world, since the 1960s, with the .22 Long Rifle or Long or Short rimfire round used in many rifles in the USA. And a few pistols too. The DIAMETER is about the same. .22 inches more or less. But the bullet weight (40 grain or 62 grain), amount of lead, and the shell casing and the amount of powder in the casing are VASTLY different. The muzzle velocity and muzzle energy are VASTLY different too. 3240 fps and 1282 ft lb for the .223. And 1200 fps and 120 ft lb for the 22 Long Rifle.
>>>>
>>>> Kind of like a regulation barbell weighs 45 pounds. Add two 5 pound weights to either side and it is 55 pounds. A bushel of shelled corn is 56 pounds in its paper bag. Assuming your are buying bags of seed corn. Identical weight more or less. But not when you try to pick them up and move them around. A 55 pound barbell and a 56 pound bag of corn are different. Kind of like a .22 rimfire cartridge and a .223/5.56mm NATO round are different. Despite both having a diameter of .22 inches.
>>>>
>>> More convoluted than I imagined. Not only the Navy .308:
>>>
>>> https://www.firearmsoutletcanada.com/springfield-m1-garand-rifle-w-plano-hardcase--308-win--24--surplus.html
>>
>> OK. I can believe that link you gave. Italy was using the new NATO round. Which is 7.62mm x 51mm I think is .308 Winchester. So they made an M1 Garand in 1952 with the new cartridge. I think we already talked about 30-06 and 308 Winchester being the same bullet, just different casing length. It was probably not a difficult process to change a few parts to get an M1 Garand in 308.
>>
>> But Andy, I am not convinced the old adults you were around in your youth bought surplus Italian M1 Garands and used them to hunt deer. In 308 Winchester. Now, I can believe that in the 1960s the Italian military did surplus their old M1 Garand rifles in 308. Afterall, that would be an old rifle by then. And being Italian, they had to have the newest and latest and most stylish rifle. Like their new Ferrari and new Giorgio Armani or Dolce Gabbana suits. Can't have a 15 year old time M1 Garand as a rifle. No no no.
>
>You're right, those are anomalies.
>
>After consulting with my brother, yes there were M1 in the
>neighborhood. The rounds we once pilfered and disassembled
>for powder were .308. I conflated those two things.