| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<va3dte$3ita9$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech Subject: Re: cyclists attack auto driver Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 19:55:09 -0500 Organization: Yellow Jersey, Ltd. Lines: 181 Message-ID: <va3dte$3ita9$1@dont-email.me> 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> <nndacjl6o7eljdqirb8qa8i281pjq66ipu@4ax.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 02:55:10 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="adb091d1e7924dc1e6675b2e368c211d"; logging-data="3765577"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18LQaM7HFsOKJR3qF1MbqPu" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:XSz2Wcubluh+lO3IQ4uxoYrZdm8= In-Reply-To: <nndacjl6o7eljdqirb8qa8i281pjq66ipu@4ax.com> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 9677 On 8/20/2024 7:41 PM, John B. wrote: > 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 ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========