[onoway]

jdeegan, on 2013-January-27, 04:37, said:

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

So as the outlaws get caught and their guns confiscated those guns go out of circulation and become increasingly difficult to replace. In the meantime the incidence of "spur of the moment" murders which happen only because a gun is at hand in a moment of irrational behaviour will stop.

It surprises me a little that nobody who has lost a loved one in one of these slaughters has gone after the gun and ammo manufacturers. If tobacco companies can be held responsible for someone getting lung cancer and so forth, why are gun and ammo manufacturers not being held responsible for a death their product is unmistakably responsible for?

Even the threat of such a thing might temper the appetite of these companies to sell assault weapons and other such things to the general public.

[kenberg]

jdeegan, on 2013-January-27, 04:37, said:

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

I think that it is really important to encourage the NRA and their allies to keep speaking like this. Of course the police would still have guns, our military forces would still have guns, and most all of us who favor some sort of gun regulation would expect that many responsible citizens would still, if they choose, have guns.

As long as gun advocates can be encouraged to keep babbling such utter nonsense, it will surely advance the cause of sensible legislation.

I was listening to some Republican the other day, after this meeting they had on tactics, explain that they henceforth had to quit saying stupid things about rape. The problem for them is not that they say it, the problem is that they believe it. Same with guns. They actually believe this hooey.

[Trinidad]

jdeegan, on 2013-January-27, 04:37, said:

It's nice when a certain difference of opinion can be settled with fists.

The problem lies with people who think it is nice when a difference of opinion can be settled with fists. (And we only reach for the gun when we can't settle it with fists.)

I think it is nice when certain differences of opinion can:
- remain unsettled because they are not important enough
- be discussed to reach a compromise that everybody can live with
- be settled by an impartial authority

But it's good to know that when I play bridge against jdeegan, I should bring my bullet proof vest and a tazer, just in case somebody revokes.

Rik

[blackshoe]

y66, on 2013-January-26, 12:06, said:

One of the goals of reform is to make it harder for crazy people to get guns and ammo that can take out 50 people in 50 seconds. Perhaps this is one goal you agree with?

Nope. First, there are no such guns on the "banned" list. Second, such guns exist, but they are 1) very expensive, 2) require extensive training to maintain, and 3) not sold to civilians (or cops, for that matter). IOW, it's already damn near impossible for "crazy people" to get such guns.

[TimG]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-27, 12:22, said:

Nope. First, there are no such guns on the "banned" list. Second, such guns exist, but they are 1) very expensive, 2) require extensive training to maintain, and 3) not sold to civilians (or cops, for that matter). IOW, it's already damn near impossible for "crazy people" to get such guns.

Really? I don't know much about guns, but, I get the impression that you can get a semi-automatic weapon that can fire as quickly as you can pull the trigger, which is more than once per second. Also, that replacing a clip can be done rather quickly. I don't know the maximum capacity of common clips, but I would guess (and I understand it is just a guess) that with a bit of practice someone could get 50 shots off in 50 seconds. Aiming at 50 different target is an entirely different matter.

[mikeh]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-27, 12:22, said:

Nope. First, there are no such guns on the "banned" list. Second, such guns exist, but they are 1) very expensive, 2) require extensive training to maintain, and 3) not sold to civilians (or cops, for that matter). IOW, it's already damn near impossible for "crazy people" to get such guns.

deleted.

[mike777]

bwiw first doctor who on tv usa tonight......1964...1963


not sure but hope this is part of discussion

[blackshoe]

Suggestion: find a local firing range, and go fire a couple of different semi-automatic rifles and pistols. See if experience corroborates your impression.

[mike777]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-28, 00:32, said:

Suggestion: find a local firing range, and go fire a couple of different semi-automatic rifles and pistols. See if experience corroborates your impression.

posters willnever do this..

[hrothgar]

TimG, on 2013-January-27, 22:01, said:

Really? I don't know much about guns, but, I get the impression that you can get a semi-automatic weapon that can fire as quickly as you can pull the trigger, which is more than once per second. Also, that replacing a clip can be done rather quickly. I don't know the maximum capacity of common clips, but I would guess (and I understand it is just a guess) that with a bit of practice someone could get 50 shots off in 50 seconds. Aiming at 50 different target is an entirely different matter.

Even fully automatic weapons rarely fire more than 10 rounds a second.

In order to fire 50 rounds a second, you'd need an electric driven gatling guns or some such

[hrothgar]

mike777, on 2013-January-28, 00:43, said:

posters willnever do this..

Have done so in the past. My work group at Akamai is doing a team building exercise at a firing range next month.
Not my thing, but I'm willing to go.

As I mentioned several times in the past, I have absolutely no issue with folks being able to use/fire most anything provided they are at a licensed range.

[kenberg]

I won't be going to a rifle range. I won't be going to a rap concert either. I did go to a firing range once or twice as a teenager. And to carry on the analogy I also went to a Little Richard concert back when concerts were small scale affairs with dancing. I was one of maybe hald a dozen white kids there. A memorable experience, much better than a phonograph. We make our choices.

OK, what do I actually know? That's sort of the point of suggesting a trip to a firing range, right? Actually I don't know much. A few years back when one of the Black Labs got loose, my neighbor made pointed remarks about leash laws. It was the most exciting thing to happen in this neighborhood since I moved here. I'm 74, I am working on my cholesterol ( LDL is only slightly above 100 but modern theory suggests it should be lower), the biggest danger in this neighborhood is dying of boredom, I won't be bleeding out from gunshot wounds regardless of how this turns out.

But I was young once and I can at least try to remember. There are a lot of young males out there who need some good guidance much more than they need a gun. How are conflicts resolved as adults? Just last Friday I hat a very heated very substantial run-in with a doctor on a medical issue. No one talked of hitting anyone, shooting anyone, or even suing anyone. But it was substantial. And I believe I prevailed. We shall see if this is so, but I certainly intend to prevail over the long haul. This is the sort of conflict approach that young people need to learn how to handle properly. This learning can be done, but the very first thing is to create the context where violence is simply off the table.

In my teenage years the culture very strongly supported the idea that a boy must physically confront and physically prevail or physically give way. I was neither the biggest nor the smallest, the strongest nor the weakest, but this was a lot of pressure. This is simply not the way it is in modern adult life. I cannot recall the last time that my physical strength, or lack of it, played any roll at all in any conflict I had.Maybe fifty years ago. And I have never carried a weapon. Not a gun, not a knife. In my high school metal shop class we had to do a project. Several of the boys made knives. I have no idea why this was allowed.

It's a fantasy to think that gun laws, with nothing else done, will solve the problem of violence. True enough, I give the gun rights advocates that. But I am convinced it will help. It will help by reducing the availability of guns, the pervasive existence of guns in some neighborhoods, and, perhaps, it will also help by finally starting us to move away as a society from this self-destructive idea that conflicts are best resolved through physical intimidation. Helping young males move away from this would be a really good idea, for those around them and for themselves as well. I suspect we can all agree on that. Maybe not. Well, if someone disagrees, we can have a duel over it.

This just came to mind. Almost fifty years ago I read "A Choice of Weapons" by Gordon Parks. A long time back, but I remember liking it a lot. People make choices, and some choices are better than others.

[ArtK78]

hrothgar, on 2013-January-28, 06:03, said:

Even fully automatic weapons rarely fire more than 10 rounds a second.

In order to fire 50 rounds a second, you'd need an electric driven gatling guns or some such

I believe that you misread this post and its predecessors.

One round per second (50 rounds in 50 seconds), not 50 rounds per second.

There is a reference in an earlier post to a gun that could take out 50 people in 50 seconds, which would, no doubt, require more rounds than 50 rounds in 50 seconds. But no one made reference to any gun that could fire 50 rounds per second.

[hrothgar]

ArtK78, on 2013-January-28, 07:46, said:

I believe that you misread this post and its predecessors.

One round per second (50 rounds in 50 seconds), not 50 rounds per second.

There is a reference in an earlier post to a gun that could take out 50 people in 50 seconds, which would, no doubt, require more rounds than 50 rounds in 50 seconds. But no one made reference to any gun that could fire 50 rounds per second.

Thanks for the corrections all.

Somehow, my weary un-caffeinated brain miss interpreted basic english

[Trinidad]

hrothgar, on 2013-January-28, 08:17, said:

Thanks for the corrections all.

Somehow, my weary un-caffeinated brain miss interpreted basic english

   ~~
c\_/

Rik

[blackshoe]

kenberg, on 2013-January-28, 07:39, said:

In my teenage years the culture very strongly supported the idea that a boy must physically confront and physically prevail or physically give way. I was neither the biggest nor the smallest, the strongest nor the weakest, but this was a lot of pressure. This is simply not the way it is in modern adult life. I cannot recall the last time that my physical strength, or lack of it, played any roll at all in any conflict I had.Maybe fifty years ago. And I have never carried a weapon. Not a gun, not a knife. In my high school metal shop class we had to do a project. Several of the boys made knives. I have no idea why this was allowed.

It's a fantasy to think that gun laws, with nothing else done, will solve the problem of violence. True enough, I give the gun rights advocates that. But I am convinced it will help. It will help by reducing the availability of guns, the pervasive existence of guns in some neighborhoods, and, perhaps, it will also help by finally starting us to move away as a society from this self-destructive idea that conflicts are best resolved through physical intimidation. Helping young males move away from this would be a really good idea, for those around them and for themselves as well. I suspect we can all agree on that. Maybe not. Well, if someone disagrees, we can have a duel over it.

This just came to mind. Almost fifty years ago I read "A Choice of Weapons" by Gordon Parks. A long time back, but I remember liking it a lot. People make choices, and some choices are better than others.

Never read that autobiography. Maybe I should.

My teenage years postdated yours by a decade, but I don't imagine things were much different. I do remember being shocked, a couple years after I graduated from high school (1965) to hear that one of my sister's classmates had cold-cocked the vice principal. We didn't have violence like that when I was in school!

I had a friend, a year older than I, who grew up in rural New York. He said that he and his friends used to go hunting after school - and they would bring their guns to school and stack them in the coat closet. Nobody was concerned about that back then, and nobody shot up the school. Times have indeed changed. I imagine it's the same with making knives in shop class.

I note that there's a group here that teaches the dying art of blacksmithing. They also have a class in knife making. It's an interesting (to me, anyway) subject. I might take the course some time.

Two things: I am learning that in Chinese martial arts, the ultimate goal is to not fight. In fact, one of the translations of one of the Chinese words for "martial arts" is "fight-no fight". The other thing is from Vegetius: "Si vis pacem, para bellum" — if you want peace, prepare for war. Personally, I think that being prepared - knowing how, and having the means - to fight is a good thing, even though you hope never to have to use it. There's also an element of "a man's gotta know his limitations" to it - the more you learn, the more you learn how much you don't know, and also how horribly wrong a fight can go.

[BunnyGo]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-28, 00:32, said:

Suggestion: find a local firing range, and go fire a couple of different semi-automatic rifles and pistols. See if experience corroborates your impression.

Indeed. I've been to a firing range with M16s, Kalashnikovs, and Golanis. The M16 was able to strike a target dead center 5 times in about 2 seconds (single-shot mode) at 100 meters no scope. This was of course an expert firing, but still quite doable. Even the beginners were able to hit at 100 meters no scope firing 29 shots in about 1 minute--hitting target every time.

The Kalashnikov was MUCH easier for a novice. It was hard to miss the inner ring.

I'd've thought as a military man you'd've had more practice.

Edit: The Golani (an Israeli made Uzi) was hard to aim at all as its purpose is to spray and pray.

[y66]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-27, 12:22, said:

Nope. First, there are no such guns on the "banned" list. Second, such guns exist, but they are 1) very expensive, 2) require extensive training to maintain, and 3) not sold to civilians (or cops, for that matter). IOW, it's already damn near impossible for "crazy people" to get such guns.

It took me about 20 minutes to find a private seller in Texas who wants to sell a Glock 17 with 2 17 round magazines. Can meet at any North Houston gun store or range.

In fully automatic mode, the rate of fire is 1,100 to 1,200 rounds per minute. The rate of fire for semi-automatics is limited by how fast you can pull the trigger -- 2 to 3 times per second for a pro.

[blackshoe]

AFAIK, no Glock 17 is an automatic weapon. The Glock 18 is a selective fire weapon, but is not available to the general public. I doubt very much what your guy in Texas is selling is a Glock 18.

[blackshoe]

BunnyGo, on 2013-January-28, 18:32, said:

Indeed. I've been to a firing range with M16s, Kalashnikovs, and Golanis. The M16 was able to strike a target dead center 5 times in about 2 seconds (single-shot mode) at 100 meters no scope. This was of course an expert firing, but still quite doable. Even the beginners were able to hit at 100 meters no scope firing 29 shots in about 1 minute--hitting target every time.

The Kalashnikov was MUCH easier for a novice. It was hard to miss the inner ring.

I'd've thought as a military man you'd've had more practice.

Edit: The Golani (an Israeli made Uzi) was hard to aim at all as its purpose is to spray and pray.

Last time I saw a Kalashniikov, some VC was shooting at me with it. He missed.

As far as practice, I had plenty of practice with the M-14, the M-79 Grenade Launcher, the M1911A1 .45 caliber pistol, the M2A .50 caliber machine gun, the M16A1 (which had a tendency to jam), and several different shotguns— 45 years ago when I was In Vietnam. I used to go and shoot my 9 mm Beretta M92F every couple of weeks while I owned it. That was about 25 years ago. When I retired from the Navy to New York twenty years ago, I gave up that gun - first off, they wouldn't let me (or anyone else) have a permit until I'd been here a year, and secondly, they "lost" the paperwork four times, so I gave up.