| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<nndacjl6o7eljdqirb8qa8i281pjq66ipu@4ax.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech Subject: Re: cyclists attack auto driver Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 07:41:06 +0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 176 Message-ID: <nndacjl6o7eljdqirb8qa8i281pjq66ipu@4ax.com> References: <v9tf33$2fm0s$4@dont-email.me> <4pk4cjh6lokkmah8hu0dfqu0gq99akff7l@4ax.com> <v9u4bv$2is2s$3@dont-email.me> <nns5cjhvfa23vbjhongnv94u0bs1ags6tl@4ax.com> <gj06cj1kimofmc8u9kt250diqmchn1pf2d@4ax.com> <v9voo7$2tip9$4@dont-email.me> <omp6cj9hm1c9bh8l5a9dee0ps37siiqoa0@4ax.com> <bhn7cjldbqvv58f67m3pbo1fcvjdbphser@4ax.com> <va0tks$3793q$4@dont-email.me> <s3o8cjdesesc2mgr60t2t9rdjqrv12m2l8@4ax.com> <tnq8cjd26q686281q3kmkmbok4gkj9u2j7@4ax.com> <va23o0$3chus$3@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 02:41:10 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3fa36510dbdff02bcf6c7820cf693af7"; logging-data="3763267"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1++RuTH6ic7R1XXorRb6mNGaIYfDEkOaQU=" User-Agent: ForteAgent/7.10.32.1212 Cancel-Lock: sha1:ByVFMmBTDjDh18AWp7bujAy7igc= Bytes: 9232 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. -- Cheers, John B.