| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<va4qbj$3s780$5@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!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 08:33:38 -0500 Organization: Yellow Jersey, Ltd. Lines: 196 Message-ID: <va4qbj$3s780$5@dont-email.me> References: <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> <qbmacj15t2vihrjg9pto4fivo7u2kseuls@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 15:33:39 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="adb091d1e7924dc1e6675b2e368c211d"; logging-data="4070656"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/bip0YI58cmBFZjF4bPw8f" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:LOhBup4+P9rTQ0njROg4ey3cmjg= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <qbmacj15t2vihrjg9pto4fivo7u2kseuls@4ax.com> Bytes: 10654 On 8/20/2024 10:54 PM, John B. wrote: > On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 19:55:09 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> 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 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. >>> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========