Another ...
 

On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 12:03:20 -0400 (EDT), justan wrote:

He said he worked for a general in the Vietnamese army

North or South?

Another ...
 

On 7/1/2018 1:28 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 13:08:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 7/1/2018 12:06 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 04:57:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/30/2018 9:22 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/30/18 9:18 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 19:56:38 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 14:36:59 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The laws governing the purchase of a shotgun in Florida are stricter
than those in Maryland.

I bought a shotgun in Florida back when we wintered down there after
we found a 4-5 foot rattlesnake coiled up at our front door one day.

Like Maryland, they did a quick telephone background check, rang me up
but I had to wait several days to pick it up and take it home.

Maryland lets you take it home the same day after the quick phone
background check.

===

Are you sure about that?Â* I've never had to wait for anything other
than the background check and that only takes a few minutes, if that.
Filling out the form takes longer.


California used to have no waiting period for long guns, only handguns.
Not now, all have 10 day waiting period.Â* I remember buying my Remington
1100 San Francisco Gun Exchange.Â*Â* Yes SF used to have gun stores.Â* And
they wrapped it in brown paper and handed it to me.Â*Â* My Ithaca 37 from
monkey ward, handed to me with a box of gratis shells.

I am trying to remember the last gun I had to wait for. It was
certainly a while ago if ever. In Florida a CCW gets you out the door
as soon as the NICS check clears and you get the paperwork done.
I really have not bought than many guns tho. Nothing like Harry the
gun dealer or our resident collector.
The last handgun I bought from a store up north was before the GCA68
at Ye Olde Hunter in Alexandria and I think you just paid the man and
left with it. It was a half a century ago tho. I may be wrongÂ* ;-)

I wonder if anyone still has those records?


When I bought my CZ Scorpion some months ago, I walked out of the store
after paying for it in no more than 20 minutes. Just the quick NICS
check. It's usually five full days of waiting for a handgun.


It may be that if you have a LTC or other permit (if required) the
waiting period is waived because you have already had a full background
check.

That said, based on the websites I've looked at, a permit is *not*
required, nor is any proof of training to purchase a unregulated
long gun in Maryland. Perhaps that's when a waiting period is imposed?

Anyway, the point is that the recent Maryland shooter did not require
a permit to purchase the shotgun he used and was likely only subject
to the quick criminal background check they quickly do by phone. If the
court issues he previously had with his beef with the newspaper were
dismissed, there was no criminal background.

There were never any charges brought by the paper to dismiss. We don't
really know the details of the harassment charges but the cop I saw
seemed to blow it off as I assume the rest of the LE establishment
did. I really haven't been watching much of this because we are
keeping the TV off these days.



Based on what I read (which obviously may not be accurate) *he* is the
one who sued the paper for defamation. It was his lawsuit that was
dismissed by the court.



Are CNN and MSNBC still blaming Trump?



Haven't watch any live TV for the last two days. Sick of the
political horse****.

Another ...
 

On Sun, 01 Jul 2018 12:42:32 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jul 2018 12:19:55 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jul 2018 08:17:10 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 05:14:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:




We have. But one other point .... you corrected me about the difference
in Maryland's law regarding minimum age requirements. There's no
minimum age to possess an unregulated long gun but you have to be 18
to buy one. So, who is responsible for the 15 year old (or younger) kid
in possession of a rifle or shotgun?

Parent or adult who gave, or loaned, the kid the gun. I'm thinking this would apply:

Maryland law provides that a person “may not store or leave a loaded firearm in a location where the
person knew or should have known that an unsupervised child would gain access to the firearm.�1 This
section does not apply if:

The child’s access is supervised by an individual age 18 or older;
The child’s access was obtained as a result of unlawful entry;
The firearm is in the possession or control of a law enforcement officer while the officer is
engaged in official duties; or
The child has a certificate of firearm and hunter safety.2

Interestingly:

Maryland also prohibits any person from selling, renting or transferring ammunition for a regulated
firearm to a person under age 21, or any ammunition to a person under age 18. Maryland also
prohibits the sale or transfer of a rifle or shotgun to a person under age 18.

So whoever gave or sold the kid ammo could be in deep ****!

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/minimu...s-in-maryland/

Unless the kid had a hunting license.
When I was 15, you could buy 12 ga and .22 ammo at 7-11, pretty much
the same as getting a slurpee.

Couldn't find that exception. The law doesn't prohibit the 'possession' by a kid, just prohibits the
transfer.

Maryland has some stupid people making stupid laws.

That is pretty universal. We seem to elect "law makers" based on how
they look on TV, not how smart they are.
You can look to the leaders on capitol hill or the guys who lived at
the other end of the mall for the last 50-60 years to see that.

Another ...
 

On 7/1/18 1:38 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2018 12:42:32 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jul 2018 12:19:55 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jul 2018 08:17:10 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 05:14:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:




We have. But one other point .... you corrected me about the difference
in Maryland's law regarding minimum age requirements. There's no
minimum age to possess an unregulated long gun but you have to be 18
to buy one. So, who is responsible for the 15 year old (or younger) kid
in possession of a rifle or shotgun?

Parent or adult who gave, or loaned, the kid the gun. I'm thinking this would apply:

Maryland law provides that a person “may not store or leave a loaded firearm in a location where the
person knew or should have known that an unsupervised child would gain access to the firearm.�1 This
section does not apply if:

The child’s access is supervised by an individual age 18 or older;
The child’s access was obtained as a result of unlawful entry;
The firearm is in the possession or control of a law enforcement officer while the officer is
engaged in official duties; or
The child has a certificate of firearm and hunter safety.2

Interestingly:

Maryland also prohibits any person from selling, renting or transferring ammunition for a regulated
firearm to a person under age 21, or any ammunition to a person under age 18. Maryland also
prohibits the sale or transfer of a rifle or shotgun to a person under age 18.

So whoever gave or sold the kid ammo could be in deep ****!

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/minimu...s-in-maryland/

Unless the kid had a hunting license.
When I was 15, you could buy 12 ga and .22 ammo at 7-11, pretty much
the same as getting a slurpee.

Couldn't find that exception. The law doesn't prohibit the 'possession' by a kid, just prohibits the
transfer.

Maryland has some stupid people making stupid laws.

That is pretty universal. We seem to elect "law makers" based on how
they look on TV, not how smart they are.
You can look to the leaders on capitol hill or the guys who lived at
the other end of the mall for the last 50-60 years to see that.


Interesting. I cannot recall one instance where I saw a Maryland state
lawmaker on television, and that includes Mike Miller, the local and
current president of the Maryland senate. I've seen the governor a few
times on TV, and of course, the elected federal officials.

Another ...
 

On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 12:59:40 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 7/1/2018 10:10 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:

I thought it was sadly humorous that in the Annapolis shooting, a
*cop* who "investigated" the shooter some years ago determined he was
not dangerous. Police, even in an upscale area like Annapolis, aren't
trained to make a qualfified determination in regard to behaviors or
outright threats that aren't completely overt.


Up here they may not be trained or qualified to psychoanalyze someone
however they *are* authorized to remand someone to the court system
for possible involuntary commitment for treatment for drug abuse or
alcoholism. Not sure it that extends to other behavioral problems.

Doctors, cops and family members can petition the court to have someone
involuntarily be put in a state run de-tox and rehab program.


The cops may be able to instigate the process, we call it "Baker act"
here, but the actual court ordered commitment requires due process and
if the defendant is rich enough to actually get it, his doctors will
be involved. Seldom do those procedures succeed if that happens.
An example would be the Vegas guy. He could afford experts that would
assure nothing ever got into his records that labeled him a danger
even if they had tried to go after him.

Another ...
 

On 7/1/18 12:59 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/1/2018 10:10 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/30/18 11:28 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 19:38:41 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/30/2018 7:30 PM, Bill wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/30/2018 3:56 PM, Bill wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/30/2018 2:39 PM, Bill wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/30/2018 7:44 AM, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 17:19:51 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:28:47 -0400, Keyser Soze

wrote:

On 6/29/18 12:09 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/29/2018 11:38 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/29/18 11:32 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 08:05:34 -0400, Keyser Soze

wrote:

On 6/28/18 10:55 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 21:13:47 -0400, Keyser Soze

wrote:

On 6/28/18 8:50 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/28/2018 8:38 PM, Tim wrote:
Mr. Luddite

... shooting in Annapolis, MD ?
..........

This strict gun control laws are really paying off,
aren’t they?



Tim, it's more like this country has gone totally
crazy and out of
control.Â* No clues yet what this guy's motive was
but it won't
surprise me if he turns out to beÂ* a right wing
nutcase.


Well, for what it is worth, the police have
identified the guy from
photo recognition software. It was reported he did
"something" to
obliterate his fingerprints. He's a white man, 39
years old, named
Jarrod Warren Ramos, according to multiple law
enforcement
sources, who
apparently lives in Laurel, Maryland.

Ramos has a connection to the paper. He filed a
defamation claim
in 2012
against the paper but the case was dismissed. He also
has a minor
conviction for "harassment" some years ago.



Tim thinks Maryland has "strict" gun laws. That's
kind of funny,
since
Maryland doesn't have "strict" gun laws.

They have most of the things people are clamoring for
asÂ* "sensible"
or "common sense" gun laws
* handgun license to buy one
* handgun de facto registration
*Assault Weapons ban
* high cap magazine ban
* universal background checks on all sales
* red flag law

Do they still have that stupid fired case law?


As I said, Maryland does not have strict gun laws.

There is no "handgun license." There is a "handgun
qualification
license."Â* Even an idiot like Alex could get one.

I'm not sure what "handgun de facto registration" means.

There is no "assault weapons ban." Most AR-15 type
rifles are banned if
they don't have heavy barrels, but you can buy an AR-10
off the shelf,
and any number of different semi-auto rifles.

Only the sale of hi-cap mags are prohibited. Possession
is legal, as is
buying them across the state line and bringing them
into Maryland.

I have no idea what a "red flag" law is.

Your state is one of the ones the left uses for examples
of sensible
gun laws. BTE to enlighten you the red flag law mean
they had the
ability to take Ramos' shotgun based on his social media
rantings but
they didn't.

Thanks for pointing out the futility tho.


Ahh, so there's nothing that can be done. Let 'er rip!


I've come to the conclusion that there really is nothing
that can
be done in terms of new gun laws mainly because of how
many guns
already exist and the lack of records as to where they are
or who
owns them. Yeah, mandatory background checks, etc., may
help but most
places already have them.

The only thing I can think of .... and this will cause
indigestion for
many here ... is a required registration of all guns
and strict enforcement of the required registration.Â* If
for some reason
you are found to be in possession of a firearm that is not
registered to
you as it's owner, it results in immediate confiscation of
that firearm.

The data base or registry identifies the owner and the
owner is held
responsible for it and it's use.Â* If stolen, sold or legally
transferred a report of that event or transfer would be
required within
48 hours.

Not dissimilar for titles for vehicles.

So to some ... go take an antacid.

It's the tiny bit of liberal DNA in me.







I'd certainly support complete registration of all firearms
as a decent
start. Used firearms must be registered, too. Along with the
registration, a mandatory background check of the
purchaser. All
firearms, no exceptions.

That would not have changed any of the recent shootings at all.
They had no problem tracing this guy's shotgun back to the
dealer
within hours. What would registration do?


I can't understand why you are so down on registration of
firearms and
the attendant paperwork and
bureaucracy.

The purpose of all that is to help find the perpetrator when
he robs a
7/11, shoots someone, and
leaves his gun on the counter as he departs.

Now get off this negative attitude!



There's another aspect of mandatory gun registration that I'd
like to
see implemented and enforced.Â* Similar to some of the
Admiralty/Maritime
laws, I think firearms used in any kind of criminal activity
should have
some level of responsibility traced back to the owner on record,
regardless if the owner on record was even remotely connected
to the
crime committed.

Before Greg points out that it "wouldn't have prevented any mass
killings" so therefore it's not helpful,Â* I'd like to make the
point
that perhaps with some criminal responsibility hanging on
owner's heads
they may be more careful in the control of who has access to
their
firearms.Â* I am thinking of the kid in one of these shootings
who got
the firearm from his mother who technically owned it.

It's more of an issue of reinforcing awareness of the
responsibility
that goes with having firearms.

1 or 2 new laws certainly are not going to end mass shootings or
criminal activities using firearms.Â* What is required is a
cultural
change that includes those who are so adamant about their 2nd
Amendment
rights and all the naysayers who find every reason in the
world to argue
that any further attempt to control the use and ownership of
firearms is
fruitless.Â* Change has to start somewhere.Â* Better to
recognize and
accept that there's a serious problem and support those
reasonable
attempts to at least have some potential affect than to turn a
blind eye
and wake up someday to find that far more draconian measures
have been
enacted.

I fully support the right to gun ownership for last resort
self defense
and sporting activities.Â* With that right comes responsibility
however.




So, someone steals your car, and uses it in a bank robbery.
What charges
against you will you accept?



What does that have to do with anything?Â* The car was stolen.
All I
said was that a record of transfer for a firearm, be it stolen,
lost
or sold be kept.

My mention of Maritime law was related to the fact that in certain
circumstances a former boat owner can be held responsible for
damage in the future if it's transfer is not properly documented.

There was a case like this years ago when the former owner of a
yacht caused significant damage to a coral reef or protected
salt water grass or something.Â* The transfer of ownership was
apparently
not properly done and the former owner got hit with a huge fine.
He fought it but still ended up settling for $20K.




You are stating the former/or owner of the gun should be held
liable for
its use if there is no paperwork filed.Â*Â* Guy steals your gun and
next day
shoots someone.Â*Â* You do not even know there has been a theft.
What
charges will you accept?


I stated that a transfer ... stolen, sold or lost should be reported
within 48 hours.Â* As long as that is done, you are not held
responsible.

If you have a gun stolen from you and you don't even notice it's
missing,Â* I don't think you should have had that gun in the first
place.

That is more to the point of what I am suggesting.Â* More awareness.






You are out of town for a week?



I don't write the laws.Â* I just come up with ideas.Â* :-)

I suppose exceptions would have to exist for situations such as that.


===

The devil is always in the details, and as you try to package
everything up in bureaucratic red tape, new details emerge which
require another layer of regulations and exceptions.Â* That continues
ad infinitum until the real root cause is addressed:Â* We've got to get
better at identifying the crazies amongst us and rendering them
harmless.


I thought it was sadly humorous that in the Annapolis shooting, a
*cop* who "investigated" the shooter some years ago determined he was
not dangerous. Police, even in an upscale area like Annapolis, aren't
trained to make a qualfified determination in regard to behaviors or
outright threats that aren't completely overt.


Up here they may not be trained or qualified to psychoanalyze someone
however they *are* authorized to remand someone to the court system
for possible involuntary commitment for treatment for drug abuse or
alcoholism.Â* Not sure it that extends to other behavioral problems.

Doctors, cops and family members can petition the court to have someone
involuntarily be put in a state run de-tox and rehab program.



I wonder what the coincidence is of alcohol or drug abuse and the mass
shootings we've been discussing. Doesn't seem to be much of "motivator."

Another ...
 

On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 13:05:42 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 7/1/2018 11:54 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 06:47:08 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 02:15:43 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Soze wrote:

Fretwell's point on industrial gases is...absurd.


What is absurd on the industrial gases? Columbine and at least one other
mass attack had rigged propane bombs, which luckily failed to explode.

Those were just kids who flunked chemistry or never watched Myth
busters. The gas inside the tank is not particularly dangerous.


They tried to use a small explosive to rupture the tank I think. Did not
rupture. And a fast leaking tank is a bomb. Couple years ago, in Dublin,
Ca near me, a minister was blown through the glass patio doors when the
tank developed a giant leak.

A slow leak is a much worse explosion. It is all about involving as
much volume of fuel air mix as possible. If you insert the gas into
the HVAC system it is a lot more effective than just breaching the
tank in one room. That is simple middle school science. Maybe I am
more aware of this because I heard a house go up when I was a kid and
there was nothing left but the 1st floor deck when we got there.
Pieces of the house were spread out over a whole block. Everyone in
the house died. The FD determined one stove burner was on simmer.



I live in a *very* rural area right now. Last year around July 4th
someone shot a 20 lb propane tank with a gun in a field about a half
mile or so from my house. The explosion was deafening and we and all
our neighbors felt our houses shake.


There was more going on than simply shooting the tank.
Where was the ignition source?
My bet, some distance away.
OTOH a friend of mine did 3 inner tubes full of Oxy/acetylene and
brought the cops from 3 miles away. He wanted to do it in front of my
house but I wouldn't let him. +

Another ...
 

On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 13:08:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 7/1/2018 12:06 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 04:57:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/30/2018 9:22 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/30/18 9:18 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 19:56:38 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 14:36:59 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The laws governing the purchase of a shotgun in Florida are stricter
than those in Maryland.

I bought a shotgun in Florida back when we wintered down there after
we found a 4-5 foot rattlesnake coiled up at our front door one day.

Like Maryland, they did a quick telephone background check, rang me up
but I had to wait several days to pick it up and take it home.

Maryland lets you take it home the same day after the quick phone
background check.

===

Are you sure about that?Â* I've never had to wait for anything other
than the background check and that only takes a few minutes, if that.
Filling out the form takes longer.


California used to have no waiting period for long guns, only handguns.
Not now, all have 10 day waiting period.Â* I remember buying my Remington
1100 San Francisco Gun Exchange.Â*Â* Yes SF used to have gun stores.Â* And
they wrapped it in brown paper and handed it to me.Â*Â* My Ithaca 37 from
monkey ward, handed to me with a box of gratis shells.

I am trying to remember the last gun I had to wait for. It was
certainly a while ago if ever. In Florida a CCW gets you out the door
as soon as the NICS check clears and you get the paperwork done.
I really have not bought than many guns tho. Nothing like Harry the
gun dealer or our resident collector.
The last handgun I bought from a store up north was before the GCA68
at Ye Olde Hunter in Alexandria and I think you just paid the man and
left with it. It was a half a century ago tho. I may be wrongÂ* ;-)

I wonder if anyone still has those records?


When I bought my CZ Scorpion some months ago, I walked out of the store
after paying for it in no more than 20 minutes. Just the quick NICS
check. It's usually five full days of waiting for a handgun.


It may be that if you have a LTC or other permit (if required) the
waiting period is waived because you have already had a full background
check.

That said, based on the websites I've looked at, a permit is *not*
required, nor is any proof of training to purchase a unregulated
long gun in Maryland. Perhaps that's when a waiting period is imposed?

Anyway, the point is that the recent Maryland shooter did not require
a permit to purchase the shotgun he used and was likely only subject
to the quick criminal background check they quickly do by phone. If the
court issues he previously had with his beef with the newspaper were
dismissed, there was no criminal background.

There were never any charges brought by the paper to dismiss. We don't
really know the details of the harassment charges but the cop I saw
seemed to blow it off as I assume the rest of the LE establishment
did. I really haven't been watching much of this because we are
keeping the TV off these days.



Based on what I read (which obviously may not be accurate) *he* is the
one who sued the paper for defamation. It was his lawsuit that was
dismissed by the court.


The question was whether the paper ever had him charged for threats
and they chose not to.

Another ...
 

On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 13:34:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 7/1/2018 1:28 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 13:08:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 7/1/2018 12:06 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 04:57:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/30/2018 9:22 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/30/18 9:18 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 19:56:38 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 14:36:59 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The laws governing the purchase of a shotgun in Florida are stricter
than those in Maryland.

I bought a shotgun in Florida back when we wintered down there after
we found a 4-5 foot rattlesnake coiled up at our front door one day.

Like Maryland, they did a quick telephone background check, rang me up
but I had to wait several days to pick it up and take it home.

Maryland lets you take it home the same day after the quick phone
background check.

===

Are you sure about that?* I've never had to wait for anything other
than the background check and that only takes a few minutes, if that.
Filling out the form takes longer.


California used to have no waiting period for long guns, only handguns.
Not now, all have 10 day waiting period.* I remember buying my Remington
1100 San Francisco Gun Exchange.** Yes SF used to have gun stores.* And
they wrapped it in brown paper and handed it to me.** My Ithaca 37 from
monkey ward, handed to me with a box of gratis shells.

I am trying to remember the last gun I had to wait for. It was
certainly a while ago if ever. In Florida a CCW gets you out the door
as soon as the NICS check clears and you get the paperwork done.
I really have not bought than many guns tho. Nothing like Harry the
gun dealer or our resident collector.
The last handgun I bought from a store up north was before the GCA68
at Ye Olde Hunter in Alexandria and I think you just paid the man and
left with it. It was a half a century ago tho. I may be wrong* ;-)

I wonder if anyone still has those records?


When I bought my CZ Scorpion some months ago, I walked out of the store
after paying for it in no more than 20 minutes. Just the quick NICS
check. It's usually five full days of waiting for a handgun.


It may be that if you have a LTC or other permit (if required) the
waiting period is waived because you have already had a full background
check.

That said, based on the websites I've looked at, a permit is *not*
required, nor is any proof of training to purchase a unregulated
long gun in Maryland. Perhaps that's when a waiting period is imposed?

Anyway, the point is that the recent Maryland shooter did not require
a permit to purchase the shotgun he used and was likely only subject
to the quick criminal background check they quickly do by phone. If the
court issues he previously had with his beef with the newspaper were
dismissed, there was no criminal background.

There were never any charges brought by the paper to dismiss. We don't
really know the details of the harassment charges but the cop I saw
seemed to blow it off as I assume the rest of the LE establishment
did. I really haven't been watching much of this because we are
keeping the TV off these days.



Based on what I read (which obviously may not be accurate) *he* is the
one who sued the paper for defamation. It was his lawsuit that was
dismissed by the court.



Are CNN and MSNBC still blaming Trump?



Haven't watch any live TV for the last two days. Sick of the
political horse****.


Tiger Woods is on now. Makes for a pleasant TV experience.

Another ...
 

On 7/1/2018 1:54 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 13:05:42 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 7/1/2018 11:54 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 06:47:08 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 02:15:43 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Soze wrote:

Fretwell's point on industrial gases is...absurd.


What is absurd on the industrial gases? Columbine and at least one other
mass attack had rigged propane bombs, which luckily failed to explode.

Those were just kids who flunked chemistry or never watched Myth
busters. The gas inside the tank is not particularly dangerous.


They tried to use a small explosive to rupture the tank I think. Did not
rupture. And a fast leaking tank is a bomb. Couple years ago, in Dublin,
Ca near me, a minister was blown through the glass patio doors when the
tank developed a giant leak.

A slow leak is a much worse explosion. It is all about involving as
much volume of fuel air mix as possible. If you insert the gas into
the HVAC system it is a lot more effective than just breaching the
tank in one room. That is simple middle school science. Maybe I am
more aware of this because I heard a house go up when I was a kid and
there was nothing left but the 1st floor deck when we got there.
Pieces of the house were spread out over a whole block. Everyone in
the house died. The FD determined one stove burner was on simmer.



I live in a *very* rural area right now. Last year around July 4th
someone shot a 20 lb propane tank with a gun in a field about a half
mile or so from my house. The explosion was deafening and we and all
our neighbors felt our houses shake.


There was more going on than simply shooting the tank.
Where was the ignition source?
My bet, some distance away.
OTOH a friend of mine did 3 inner tubes full of Oxy/acetylene and
brought the cops from 3 miles away. He wanted to do it in front of my
house but I wouldn't let him. +


I don't know what the details are. All I know is what I read in the
paper the next day and the police report. They said someone reportedly
shot it with a rifle and it blew up. They were also shooting off
fireworks and other 4th of July type pyrotechnics so maybe that had
something to do with it.

I always thought those propane tanks were considered safe because they
couldn't blow up.