Re: cyclists attack auto driver

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.