On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 11:54:38 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/4/2022 8:43 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 20:02:22 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> > <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/4/2022 7:03 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 12:58:50 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 3/3/2022 9:47 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 20:48:51 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 3/3/2022 8:29 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 12:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "Assault rifles" as in commonly used language - rifles with
> >>>>>>>>> multiple design features originally and purposely included
> >>>>>>>>> for effectiveness in assault or other combat.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Yes, some people prefer to restrict the definition to those
> >>>>>>>>> guns having built in full auto capability. Some do not use
> >>>>>>>>> that restriction.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If accessories are readily available to allow emptying a 30
> >>>>>>>>> round magazine in much less than ten seconds, I think the
> >>>>>>>>> restricted definition is worthless. That capability is
> >>>>>>>>> intended for combat or assault.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The thing is that nearly all "improvements" in firearm design was
> >>>>>>> intended to make them a more effective combat weapon.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> John, IIRC you've said you used to hunt. I assume you used a shotgun or
> >>>>>> a rifle, as is typical with most hunters.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Care to tell us what models, and what design features it had that made
> >>>>>> it a "more effective combat weapon," as opposed to a better hunting weapon?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well, tell me what a "better hunting weapon" is.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But your argue is ridiculous at best. I say that nearly all
> >>>>> improvements were intended to make then more effective combat weapons"
> >>>>> and you start talking about hunting.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My first rifle was a ,22 single shot bolt action Winchester rifle. the
> >>>>> first single shot bolt action rifle was developed by von Dreyse and
> >>>>> used by the army of Prussia in 1841.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In later years I built "varmint rifles" based on the "short mauser"
> >>>>> actions - all surplus from some army or another, a bolt action, action
> >>>>> with a magazine, developed by Peter Paul and Wilhelm Mauser and
> >>>>> accepted by the Prussian government on 2 December 1871.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I could go on but why bother as just about any firearm you can mention
> >>>>> is, or has been, used by the military or law enforcement and with the
> >>>>> exception of the early "Elephant Rifles" I can think of no "guns"
> >>>>> developed solely for hunting,
> >>>>
> >>>> Tell us more about your hunting rifles. Did they have a shorter barrel
> >>>> length, like an AR, or longer barrel length like most other rifles?
> >>>> Barrels as short as 15 inches are great for street warfare. Most hunters
> >>>> want something well over 20 inches.
> >>>>
> >>>> Did your hunting rifles have pistol grips? They're very handy if you've
> >>>> got to jump and dodge around to avoid real or pretend enemy fire. Did
> >>>> the squirrels and woodchucks fire back at you, making that grip necessary?
> >>>>
> >>>> How big was the magazine, and how fast was the action on your hunting
> >>>> rifle? Could you empty a 30 round magazine into a rabbit in less than
> >>>> ten seconds? And hey, could you fit a drum magazine in case 30 rounds
> >>>> didn't take down that rabbit?
> >>>>
> >>>> Did you use a "red dot" sight? You can get on target SO much faster,
> >>>> which is handy if the deer you're after is also shooting back at you..
> >>>>
> >>>> I could go on, but I'd appreciate answers to those questions instead of
> >>>> evasions.
> >>>
> >>> You know Frank, I believe that you have really "gone right round the
> >>> bend" as they used to say. A 15" barrel is great for street fighting?
> >>>
> >>> But o.k. Barrel lengths:
> >>>
> >>> Barrel length, from a technical view point, is based on two things.
> >>> (1) the necessary length to allow for burning the majority of the
> >>> powder charge.
> >>> This is the reason that slow burning black powder weapons had a much
> >>> long barrel then is necessary for modern fast burning smokeless powder
> >>> weapons. And:
> >>>
> >>> (2) to provide, with "iron sights", the necessary length between the
> >>> front and rear sight to produce accuracy.
> >>>
> >>> Oh yes, I forget, with a military weapon a longer barrel was thought
> >>> to make a better weapon when the bayonet was attached as in years gone
> >>> by the basic Infantry tactic was to march, in formation, up to,
> >>> perhaps 50 yards, or even closer, to the enemy. Present the musket,
> >>> fire, and charge with the bayonet.
> >>> This was highly successful in wars from about 1420 until the invention
> >>> of the Minne Bullet, in the mid 1800's.
> >>>
> >>> Next question, big magazines... Well, rifles and pistols have had
> >>> "large" magazines for years and years. .22 rifles have had magazines
> >>> that extended the full length of the barrel, certainly as ling as I've
> >>> been around. And, as I have repeatedly mentioned 30 round magazines
> >>> have been available for the German Luger, since WW I days.
> >>>
> >>> Lets see... Red Dot sights. That is a subject abut which I have no
> >>> personal knowledge but optical sights, in general were first made
> >>> because it allowed the shooter to see better and thus aim more
> >>> accurately then with the so called "iron sights".
> >>>
> >>> But more to the point.
> >>> Why this irrational terror regarding modern firearms? After all you
> >>> are, statistically, in twice as much danger from a Black man with
> >>> his fist clenched then you are from the terrifying AR type of firearm..
> >>
> >> John, you carefully avoided answering each question.
> >>
> >> Based on that, I assume not one of the features I asked about was on
> >> your hunting guns.
> >>
> >> Which is not surprising. Those features, common on ARs, are rarely worth
> >> having on a gun used for hunting. Their value is for combat situations..
> >> Or for pretending to be in a combat situation.
> >
> > Yes, you did state "hunting rifles" and I replied to you giving you
> > the technically answers to your questions - with the exception of the
> > red dot things which I'm not familiar with.
> You replied by assiduously evading my direct questions about your
> specific guns. Can't you be man enough to own up to it?

Not to take John's side or your side in this rousing argument. But I do not think wise, intelligent, thinking people talk about their own personal guns in public. That is something only done by YouTube idiots and other senseless braggarts. There are some things, like your social security number, or your favorite sex positions, that should not be talked about in public. Detailed gun ownership is one of them.

> > The problem seems to be this irrational fear that you exhibit
> > regarding AR type rifles. I have a great deal of difficulty in
> > understanding this.
> Your difficulty understanding things is obvious, including the fact that
> I have no personal fear of such guns. (Disgust =/= fear.) Abetting mass
> murder is disgusting to me. Grown ups pretending to be Rambo inspire
> scorn and disgust, not fear.
>
> At the same time, I recognize that you are only in this for the
> argument. By your responses, it's obvious you do not now own an AR or
> similar weapon, so you're a counterargument to the common "I need
> personal defense" excuse. And in the days you hunted, you did so
> successfully using a gun without the combat-oriented design features I
> described.
>
> For you, it's fun to argue in favor of the weapon that's been repeatedly
> used for mass murder. But losing the argument on logical points takes
> away your fun, so you've switch to insults.
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski