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: Todays rant
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2024 09:18:05 -0600
Organization: Yellow Jersey, Ltd.
Lines: 138
Message-ID: <vj4dbf$3rv23$2@dont-email.me>
References: <9333lj51la9cbu8q82vko53347i8d8lh36@4ax.com>
 <visfbg$1lu43$3@dont-email.me> <vishck$1menv$2@dont-email.me>
 <viskah$1n73f$2@dont-email.me> <vispja$1om91$1@dont-email.me>
 <1ac4ljlf7tdek1u2h1884gm0spoc5uqc72@4ax.com> <vitk1j$1um57$2@dont-email.me>
 <fvb5ljlaun5p4bmgjmbk5t2cr5sf47117i@4ax.com> <vivjsv$2h5ku$3@dont-email.me>
 <s2r6ljt3j8encrucdli9k9o32655hns590@4ax.com> <vivr5q$2inku$5@dont-email.me>
 <t6u6lj99uu4p7mi79ob8cui2ducmjc699i@4ax.com>
 <lrjajaFooouU2@mid.individual.net>
 <lbv8lj1aijuvl6mkd313ti4lr8286onvgi@4ax.com>
 <lrkq3fF1goiU1@mid.individual.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2024 16:18:07 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5a974225e69b00ff7a9b1736ebe15aa7";
	logging-data="4062275"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19xpHYp0W1Z2/PzYmrbYrtP"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sKMBSSzBssLUy6aX7XN7lpa9GEE=
In-Reply-To: <lrkq3fF1goiU1@mid.individual.net>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7174

On 12/7/2024 11:45 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>> On 7 Dec 2024 16:14:34 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 15:43:23 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/6/2024 3:30 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 14:39:10 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/6/2024 4:18 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 20:29:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 12/5/2024 6:07 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I remember someone who insists that the fact that people who have guns
>>>>>>>>>> sometimes get shot mean that having a gun makes you more likely to get
>>>>>>>>>> shot.
>>>>>>>>> You're not remembering. You're imagining straw man positions. Just like
>>>>>>>>> Tom, you imagine arguments in which you're "winning."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've given multiple citations of reputable sources, and many links to
>>>>>>>>> reputable studies. You've given only snarks, which is one of the reasons
>>>>>>>>> I so seldom respond to you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You've got the intellectual depth of a whiny third grader.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My, I seem to have upset Mr. Tricycle! How could that have happened?  ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I remember it well. You went on and on insisting that the correlation
>>>>>>>> between gun shot victims and gun owning victims meant owning a gun was
>>>>>>>> dangerous.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Post links to exactly what I said, and we can discuss. People here don't
>>>>>>> trust your "memory" any more than we trust the "memory" of Tom Kunich.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See below:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As for your citations of reputable sources, the thing is;  you saying
>>>>>>>> they're reputable doesn't make them reputable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, I know. Any source that disagrees with your simplistic mind is not
>>>>>>> reputable. Perhaps I should be quoting the Epoch Times instead?  Or
>>>>>>> maybe Tucker Carlson?  ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have you yet grown the courage to ride your tricycle on a bike path
>>>>>>> without having a handgun for feelings of security?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I thought not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And the data's clear that a gun in the house "for
>>>>>> protection" greatly increases the chance someone in that
>>>>>> house will be badly hurt or killed by it. Houses without
>>>>>> guns are almost always safer.
>>>>>> --Krygowski
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you really want to discuss that nonsense? I'm ready if you are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> C'est bon
>>>>>> Soloman
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't doubt that (I don't actually know it) as people who
>>>>> face greater danger (wolves, bears, home invaders, rapists)
>>>>> in their immediate environment are much more likely to arm
>>>>> themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>> As you note frequently, correlation is not causation.
>>>>
>>>> Protection againsst a bear might require something bigger than my
>>>> .380, and neither wolves or bears are likely to be put off by merely
>>>> displaying a gun.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> C'est bon
>>>> Soloman
>>>>
>>>
>>> I’d assume that depends on the bear, Polar Bears are a large and unique in
>>> that they view humans as prey, with other animals it’s a outlier with
>>> unwell animals such as wounded/ill tigers/lions.
>>>
>>> Wolves don’t seem to be a huge concern unless your a sheep though are
>>> solutions to that, ie sheep dogs, which have an area effect.
>>>
>>> Certainly the North American YouTube’s etc don’t take guns but bear spray
>>> and so on, cycling in bear country to be vaguely on topic!
>>>
>>> Roger Merriman
>>
>> Evan a North American black bear can be dangerous if you inadvertently
>> get to close to her cubs. I'd want a fairly powerful handgun if that
>> happed, and hopefully the load warning shot would fend her off. I've
>> occasionally seen black bear while bicycling in Florida, but they
>> always run off. We also have cougars in Florida, but it's rare to see
>> one. I have seen cougars while hiking in Colorado. They're bigger than
>> Florida cougars, and I'm told they are less afraid of humans.
>>
>> When bow hunting deer, canoeing, or camping in bear country in
>> northern Wisconsin, years ago, I always carried a .357. An ounce of
>> prevention, as they say. It's probably not even legal to do that
>> today.
>>
>> --
>> C'est bon
>> Soloman
>>
> 
> In those sort of situations I’m told that a rifle ie has better range or
> rather accuracy so folks can hit targets at range, a pistol at the ranges
> that one is likely to hit a bear etc are fairly close and realistically
> probably not much use at that point.
> 
> Certainly folks who do exploring with polar bears are very much told you
> will not get time for a warning shot even on open ground, you’ll only get
> time for one shot before it’s closed the distance.
> 
> Roger Merriman
> 

I am not a hunter.

 From my understanding however, the sidearm is for close 
immediate threat such as walking up to your wounded target. 
It's a different problem from stalking and carefully aiming 
from a distance, for which rifle or bow are preferred.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/deer-attacks-hunter-who-shot-it-in-arkansas/

https://fox59.com/news/national-world/kentucky-hunter-dies-after-struggle-with-wounded-deer/

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/hunter-killed-by-deer-hed-shot-that-got-back-up-and-attacked-him/
-- 
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971