Re: bike path news

On 3/12/2025 12:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 3/12/2025 11:40 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 3/12/2025 9:36 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:

On 3/12/2025 9:22 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 3/12/2025 3:19 AM, zen cycle wrote:

On 3/11/2025 8:45 PM, John B. wrote:

On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 10:20:18 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 3/11/2025 8:57 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 3/10/2025 10:09 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 3/10/2025 9:37 PM, John B. wrote:

>
Well... you exhibit a fear of firearms ...

>
Bullshit. I exhibit distaste for the American fetish for firearms, and
the effect it has on society. And I exhibit scorn for paranoia so
severe as to cause a person to _require_ a firearm to do ordinary
things like ride a quiet bike path, drive a car, fill a gas tank, etc.
>
I'm sympathetic to those controlled by some phobias. Not this one.
>
And BTW, it's not just our super-timid tricyclist. One classmate of
mine in an adult education class brought his handgun to a class picnic
in the country. Nice guy, but that was crazy paranoia. Another guy,
less admirable in general, bragged to me about carrying his handgun
into a folk music concert we attended. Absolute stupidity, and crazy
paranoia.
>
That latter guy played guitar, but was so obese that he used a special
stand to hold his guitar out away from his belly. Maybe his physical
shortcomings triggered feelings of great vulnerability, as with Mr.
Tricycle? Nonetheless, his risk assessment was off the charts crazy -
as is Mr. Tricycle's.
>

>
Replace 'firearm' in the above with 'bicycle helmet'.
Same argument.
>
And regarding risk assessment, I'm reasonable certain that this
shopping  mall in Greenwood Indiana never experienced a deranged madman
shooting into a crown before, and most probably never will again.
>
However, on one fine July day, it happened.
>
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2022/07/hero-armed- citizen- landed-8-
of-10-shots-at-40-yards-to-stop-mass-shooting-in-15- seconds/
>
Not especially that Mr Dicken was lawfully carrying only days after the
Indiana statute had changed to allow carry.
>
p.s. 8 of ten at 40 feet instantaneously without preparation is
excellent marksmanship. Not achievable without some diligence and range
time.
>

>
Which doesn't bode well for people who carry for personal protection and
never take the time and diligence. If there was a law requiring range
time and accuracy to carry a gun, I'd be a lot more confident in the
general public carrying guns. Instead, cases like this are far more
prevalent:
>
https://people.com/calif-toddler-accidentally-shoots- and- kills- mother-with-unsecured-gun-police-8759431

>
Ah But, as your reference states the boyfriend committed an illegal
act, and was charged, The Florida guy is talking about a legal act.
>
A bit of a difference, wouldn't one think?

>
not much. The gun fetishists (lobby) thinks any restrictions on gun ownership are unconstitutional. In their (small) minds, the boyfriend did nothing wrong.
>
Besides, there's this:
>
https://www.fox13news.com/news/parents-4-year-old-boy- who- accidentally-shot-killed-himself-will-not-be- charged- davenport-police
>
The child found the gun underneath the seat underneath the seat accidentally shot himself. No laws were broken. In floriduh, HB 1087 was introduced that would have required owners to lock their firearms in a trunk or glove box when left inside an unoccupied car. It died in committe.
>
Then there's this:
https://nypost.com/2024/08/26/us-news/5-year-old-utah- boy- dies- after- shooting-himself-with-parents-gun/
>
Again, no laws were broken, there is no Utah law against leaving unattended weapons accessible to minors, and also does not require weapons to be secured.

>
Your fellow citizens enacted Massachusetts statutes apparently of a different nature than in Utah:
>
https://www.mass.gov/doc/7630-improper-storage-of-a- firearm-gl- c-140- s-131l/download

>
I'm fully aware of current massachusetts firearms laws, thank you, having completed the state mandated LTC earlier this year (license on the way).
>

>
Utah may revise theirs (or enforce them more rigorously. I don't actually know). Or not.

>
I'm going with 'not'.
>
>

>
I doubt you and I have any disagreement that it was criminal negligence in a practical and moral sense.

And with no possibility of exacting any sanctions of any types on the parents, by what motivation is there to hope future gun owners will be any more responsible?
>
https://abcnews.go.com/US/father-christopher-bizilj-died- firing-uzi- urged-son/story?id=12565132
>
The live-firing of automatic weapons was being supervised by a 15 - year old, The promotional advertisment for the event said "It's all legal & fun — No permits or licenses required!!!!"
>
The parent was not charged, the organizers were acquitted, in gun- hating liberal massachusetts.

>
I didn't know the case but sometimes jurors pause to reflect on the multiple prior felons with stolen firearms threatening, maiming or killing the citizenry who are charged by the District Attorney with disorderly conduct and/or similar lightweight charges. They react in a very human way.
>
Is that right? No. Understandable? Yes.

 Is the kid's death no problem? Apparently.
 

I am actually in agreement but the jury found differently.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971