Re: bike path news

On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 08:30:31 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
 

On 3/12/2025 7:20 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:

On 3/12/2025 5:32 AM, John B. wrote:

On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 04:19:11 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> 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.

>
>
Re restrictions on gun ownership???
>
The first piece of national gun control legislation was
passed on June
26, 1934. The National Firearms Act (NFA)
>

>
Which is not germane to the point that the gun fetishists
(lobby) think any restrictions on gun ownership are
unconstitutional.
>

>
With good reason.
>
Because the actual written text doesn't comport with the
many and various National Firearms Acts.

 In my opinion, full automatic weapons should be illegal or heavily
controlled as they currently are, but the problem is that US
Constitution says otherwise.  There's also a problem with trying to
modify the 2nd Amendment in that there's never going to be an
agreement on how to modify it.
 I guess we'll just have to live with unconstitutional laws.
--
C'est bon
Soloman