Re: cyclists attack auto driver

On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 11:46:24 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 11:35:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 8/19/2024 6:27 AM, John B. wrote:

On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 03:42:14 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
 

On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 20:41:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 8/18/2024 4:19 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 14:38:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 8/17/2024 11:37 PM, John B. wrote:

>
But as I've mentioned  a number of times my family has had guns for at
least 4 generations, as close as I can calculate 300 years or so, and
never shot anyone. Why does Frankie want to penalize us?

>
My bet is that your family had guns for hunting and pest control. My bet
is also that your family never owned a gun that could fire more than,
say, six rounds in a minute. After all, that capability is essentially
useless for almost all hunting. But it is "useful" if you intend to kill
a roomful of kids, or church attendees. That is the gun style's
significant detriment.
>
As you _should_ be able to remember, I'm firmly in favor of hunting.

>
That's nonsense. My dad's old Winchester model 69 (1930s) had an eight
round mag. My Colt Woodsman had a ten round mag. That didn't count the
one in the pipe. Counting that, put all the Wichester model 94s at 7
rds.

>
I know those guns exist.

>
No you don't. You never heard of them until I mentioned them.
>

I'm betting John's family didn't have them.

>
You obviously have no idea how many hunters have had a Winchester 94.
I had one years ago. The one I had was a carbine and only had a 6 rd
mag. The model 94 rifle produced today has an 8 rd mag.  The 94 stands
for 1894, by the way.
>

And
while I may be wrong, it's certain that the earliest family members he
bragged about did not have them, but probably still hunted successfully.
A competent hunter doesn't need even six quick shots.

>
>
<LOL>  As if you'd know anything about competent hunting.

 
 
I really can't figure where Frankie is gets his ideas and I can only
assume that like Tom, just makes then up.
 
  Above he writes, "also that your family never owned a gun that could
fire more than,  say, six rounds in a minute."
 
As I've said a number of times my father had a hunting rifle built on
a Springfield army rifle base. 5 round magazine and one up the spout
is 6 and I could, with no problems at all fire 6 rounds in a minute
and if you want to talk about pistols I'm sure that you can fire your
Colt Woodman even faster.

>
I could probably get all 11 rds off in a couple of seconds, but I
don't think I ever tried. Walking through the gardens, pastures and
cornfields shooting gophers, it was handy not having to stop and
reload.
>

Ah, John! First, please note that I said "MORE than 6 rounds in a
minute." You gave _one_ example of _one_ gun your father had, but it did
not shoot _more_ than 6 in a minute. So, thanks for confirming my guess!
>
And as I said, that capability is essentially useless for hunting. I'm
betting you (or your father) never blasted six quick shots at an animal
while hunting with that rifle.

>
Krygowski dishonest strawman alert.
>

You could, of course, tell us some of your hunting tales, and let us
know details of how you actually _used_ those guns. But I suspect you
won't, because they'll describe one or two careful shots, not a rapid
blast of shooting.

>
Another Krygowski dishonest strawman alert.

Note that Frankie says "You gave _one_ example of _one_ gun your
father had, but it did not shoot _more_ than 6 in a minute."

While I actually wrote, "I could, with no problems at all fire 6
rounds in a minute".

And then he goes on to ignore the British army reference:  The
exercise The Mad Minute was a pre-World War I bolt-action rifle speed
shooting exercise used by British Army riflemen, using the
 Lee–Enfield service rifle. The exercise formally known as "Practice
number 22, Rapid Fire, The Musketry Regulations, Part I, 1909",
required the rifleman to fire 15 rounds at a "Second Class Figure"
target at 300 yd (270 m). The practice was described as; "Lying. Rifle
to be loaded and 4 rounds in the magazine before the target appears.
Loading to be from the pouch or bandolier by 5 rounds afterwards. One
minute allowed".
Note the date of the army regulation.

The first Mad Minute record was set by Sergeant Major Jesse
Wallingford in 1908, scoring 36 hits on a 48-inch target at 300 yards.

In other words I not only referenced what I thought I could do easily
but also provided proof that it wasn't a unique capability to shoot 6
rounds in 1 minute.

But of course it illustrates, once again, how little Frankie knows
about the subject which he pontiffs about.

Yet more proof of Frankie's foolishness
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HMcsHztX9f_tszkZ8pKJIbXoWYQLa8LnfJF_jB7jqUc/mobilebasic#h.ra58ig9rintg
1 Standing
Given one 7-round magazine, within 21 seconds, engage the target from
the standing position with 7 rounds.
2 Kneeling
Given one 6-round and one 7-round magazine, within 45 seconds, engage
the target from the kneeling position with all 13 rounds.
1) From a standing position, assume a good kneeling position and
engage the target with all 6 rounds in the first magazine.
2) Perform a rapid magazine change.
3) Engage the target with all 7 rounds in the second magazine.
and so on.

The question is what motivates a person to go on and on about a
subject that they so obviously know so little about.
Do they believe that it becomes a fact simply because they say the
words?
--
Cheers,

John B.