Re: Some bicycle paths...

On 7/28/2024 6:08 AM, zen cycle wrote:

On 7/27/2024 9:46 PM, John B. wrote:

On Sat, 27 Jul 2024 07:11:26 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>

On 7/26/2024 8:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 7/26/2024 8:03 PM, John B. wrote:

On Fri, 26 Jul 2024 04:07:04 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>

On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 23:21:45 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

I'm saying AR-style guns have no practical value in civilian hands, but
they impose serious societal harm. You agree they have no practical
value, and you demonstrate that by not owning one.
>
Why do your actions contradict your arguments?

>
<eyeroll>
>
Does the fact that Krygowski doesn't own a pickup truck mean that they
have no practical value?
>
Does the fact that most cyclists do not own a bike generator mean that
they have no practical value?
>
Simple logic seems to be beyond Krygowski's intellect.

>
Poor old Frankie. He thrashes around and comes up with what he thinks
is a logical argument but even a tiny bit of research would show him
that:
"The AR-15s are one of the most popular hunting rifles in America
nowadays, and there are several effective, accessible calibers with
bustling aftermarket's. These cartridges include 6.5 Grendel, . 300
Blackout, . 450 Bushmaster, and ."
>
https://blog.primaryarms.com/guide/ar-15-calibers-for-hunting-deer/
https://www.hunter-ed.com/blog/3-ar-15s-3-types-game/
https://time.com/4390506/gun-control-ar-15-semiautomatic-rifles/
https://www.themeateater.com/hunt/firearm-hunting/should-your-next-deer-rifle-be-an-ar-15
I could have gone on, there are at least 10 more pages,  but why
bother as the first page is sufficient to show Frankie for the fool
that he is.

>
Did you really read those? The theme is "Ooh, ARs are popular. And you
_can_ use them for some hunting. Like wild boars, or Hawaiian goats."
But about half the copy was about the downsides and how to mitigate them.
>
"with hunting smaller animals with an AR-15 is that you must have a
superior aim, and if you plan on eating your small game, the AR is not
ideal for the takedown.... ARs for these animals are typically heavier
than those built for small game, so you may need to experiment with
different stocks for comfort... The standard .223/5.56 rounds are not
ideal for large animals... some states don't allow deer hunting with
.223 diameter bullets or an AR-15 rifle...the semi-auto action is more
likely to malfunction than simpler action designs...A jammed AR-15 may
require more steps to get it back in the game...the possibility that the
detachable magazine could fall out during a hunt..."
>
Overall, it's about the changes needed to make a silk purse out of a
sow's ear. And still, I saw no mention of the great advantage of being
able to empty a 30 round magazine in less than a minute while hunting.
>
I guess that's because it's real value is hunting kids in a schoolroom,
right?
>
>

yup, a few dead kids every six months is a small price to pay

>
Well in 2019 you accepted some 612 child auto deaths,age 0 - 12
inclusive, that is 306 ,every 6 months, without saying a word :-)
https://seriousaccidents.com/blog/children-traffic-fatalities-by-year/
>

>
Well...that's a lie. I believe I responded that it's stupid and desperate to compare auto deaths to gun deaths because cars aren't designed to kill people, dumbass.
>
And there is continuing legislation every year, getting more and more restrictive, regarding placement of children in approved car seats.
>
Did you actually read that article? I don't think so. Look at the chart, It's a steady downward trend since 1975. Why? Things like increasing restrictive car seat legislation.
>
Would you accept such increasingly restrictive gun legislation to protect children? no, you wouldn't.
>
people like you, the kunich, the dumbass, and Andrew would argue that legislation to protect children is overreaching and prevents innovation (restrictive gun laws prevent innovation...lol).
>
So, it's stupid and desperate to compare automobile deaths with gun deaths, because cars aren't designed to kill people. Print that out and post it somewhere prominently visible from your keyboard the next time you want to compare something like deaths from eating Chipotle to gun deaths.
>
yeah, yeah, I know, you'll pull out the old 'negligent vehicle design' of things like the corvair "but but but look at how many people died from negligent car design!!!"...Before you do that, as you did with child auto deaths, look at what's been done to prevent it.
>
your argument that the solution is less gun legislation makes as much sense as saying cars would be safer with less restrictive DOT legislation.

  'Corvair deficiencies' is a false trope and the Corvair remains one of only two vehicles certified as safe by NHTSA after extensive investigation.
 https://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/20/federal-study-refutes-naders-corvair-charges-july-20-1972-240609
 Every feature breathlessly condemned by Mr Nader had been changed for the 1965 model year, on the road in September 1964. Mr Nader first published in January, 1965.