Re: cyclists attack auto driver

On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 05:23:32 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 22:05:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 8/19/2024 8:50 PM, John B. wrote:

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".

>
Good grief. Do you not understand the meaning of "more than"? That was
the phrase I used.
>

 
And then he goes on to ignore the British army reference...

>
Because I was talking about the guns _your family_ owned. How can you be
so confused about the matter under discussion? And again, firing that
many rounds that fast is useless in any normal hunting situation.
>
Since you're talking about your family's hunting gun use, why not tell
us how many times you shot six rounds within a minute to kill game?

>
Another Krygowski strawman....

Does the term adroit come to mind here, as in Frankie is adroit at
changing the terms to justify his ignorance?

The original of this 6 rounds in 1 minute  discussion was Frankie
seeming assertion that 6 rounds a minute was probably all that was
possible with common fire arms

I replied pointing out that an old army rifle converted to a hunting
rice was certainly capable of that rate of fire and adding a British
rifleman's test for rounds on the 300 yard target fired in one minute
with a bolt action rifle

Frankie now starts talking about hunting, a total change of subject
(required in an attempt to avoid the fact that Frankie really doesn't
know what he is talking about).

Reality has it that quite a number of guns that Frankie has yet to
condemn are capable of firing at rates far above the 6 rounds a minute
and most of this proof is freely available on the web.

For example:
 Jerry Miculek- World record 8 shots in 1 second .
Ed McGiven - September 13, 1932, shooting five rounds in 2/5 of a
second.

While I've never tested one I suspect that all "automatic pistols".
actually "semi-automatic" can fire faster then that as the rate
depends solely on how fast the shooter can pull the trigger.

I hesitate to use my own experience but way back when  I was shooting
regularly I was invited to shoot in a Maine State Police "police
match" and one of the courses of fire was 6 rounds , reload and 6 more
at a target 10 yards away in 1 minute and I had no problem doing it
with a Colt 1911 .45 caliber pistol. (Most of the Cops, with their
revolvers,  were faster then I was :-)

In short we have here a person who doesn't know what he is talking
about and when that pointed out runs about trying to justify his
stupidity.
Another Tommy, one might say :-(

--
Cheers,

John B.