Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 08:23:46 -0500
Organization: Yellow Jersey, Ltd.
Lines: 263
Message-ID: <va4pp2$3s780$3@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> <va3dte$3ita9$1@dont-email.me>
 <va3h6p$3j0kg$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 15:23:47 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="adb091d1e7924dc1e6675b2e368c211d";
	logging-data="4070656"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19wePEdNkx+dK75tCkLZrAP"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QBDbEw6LzejwQElqimBk31J4g4U=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <va3h6p$3j0kg$5@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 11266

On 8/20/2024 8:51 PM, 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 
>>> <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 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========