Re: bike path news

On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 13:40:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On 3/12/2025 9:05 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 3/11/2025 9:29 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

 

"...helmets have not killed any innocent bystanders."
 
Nor has Mr Tricycle. Score 0-0.

>
You switched the comparison from devices to people. IOW, you're
comparing apples to hand grenades.
>
Compare devices to devices: Bike helmets, silly as they usually are,
have not been used to murder other people. Guns are regularly used to
murder others.
>
Or compare people to people. Those wearing bike helmets don't intend to
use them to harm other people. Those carrying guns do intend to
seriously harm others, if in their instantaneous and often distorted
judgment, those people deserve to be seriously harmed. Why else would
they carry a lethal device?
>

 
:...law calling for serious training and re-certification of gun owners"
 
Actually, much time and expense for a couple hundred years have been
spent by service organizations (NRA, GOA), schools, Scouts, quasi-
governmental programs (CMP) etc on firearms operation, safety protocols
and marksmanship. To good effect I might add.

>
Indeed, and I strongly approve of firearm training for those intent on
using or having guns. (Both of our kids got such training, BTW.) But
again, you're moving the goalposts. The question was whether that
training should be required by law. And you _know_ that NRA and GOA
would have armies of lawyers fighting against any such law. Hell, it
would hurt gun sales!

"Those carrying guns do intend to
seriously harm others, if in their instantaneous and often distorted
judgment, those people deserve to be seriously harmed. Why else would
they carry a lethal device?"

To seriously harm others, who in my judgement, deserve to be seriously
harmed, of course.

--
C'est bon
Soloman