Re: cyclists attack auto driver

On 8/21/2024 10:05 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/21/2024 9:36 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/21/2024 4:19 AM, zen cycle wrote:

On 8/21/2024 5:07 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:

On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 21:51:21 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 8/20/2024 8:55 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/20/2024 7:41 PM, John B. wrote:

On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 07:55:28 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>

On 8/20/2024 6:09 AM, John B. wrote:

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 :-(
>

>
My double action rimmed cartridge revolver fires no faster
and no slower than my M1911.

>
Or your AR-015, if you buy one :-)
>
Which is one of the reasons that I condemn Frank for begin  a dumb
ass.

>
I left that out on purpose so as to not be overly provocative.
>
https://www.yellowjersey.org/877/120825l.jpg

>
Oooh, manly! What do you use it for?

>
>
As if a milktoast like krygowski knows anything about being manly.

>
coming from a cowardly little man afraid to leave his house without a loaded weapon
>

>
That's one way to look at it. Then again he has some certainty of returning home after.

 That's the thing: I've also got certainty of returning home, no matter what I'm doing - so much that I absolutely never think about needing a weapon, or being afraid that I don't have one. And in 70+ years of life, I've proven that certainty correct every time.
 Those carrying guns do so out of fear.
 

Neither of you is wrong but you do not share neighborhoods or prior risk event history and you each weigh the various criteria differently. It's a personal situational decision for which universal maxims fall short.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971