Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: zen cycle Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech Subject: Re: cyclists attack auto driver Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 05:19:04 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 222 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 11:19:06 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0d9afeac48d41b5c5edcd85fcbac11de"; logging-data="4011347"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1831OlZf5F1f4FJgdqK6eE6Vv3v8boYw94=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:mKsthk4Y+bcx5wagwxS4lTDxgxk= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 11027 On 8/21/2024 5:07 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote: > On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 21:51:21 -0400, Frank Krygowski > 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 wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 8/20/2024 6:09 AM, John B. wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 05:23:32 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 22:05:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 8/19/2024 8:50 PM, John B. wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 11:46:24 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 11:35:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 8/19/2024 6:27 AM, John B. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 03:42:14 -0400, Catrike Ryder >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 20:41:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/18/2024 4:19 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 14:38:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>   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 >>>>>> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========