A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Really, really dumb



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #191  
Old January 15th 20, 01:18 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
news18
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,131
Default Really, really dumb

On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 02:02:09 -0800, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

On Wednesday, 15 January 2020 04:08:57 UTC-5, news18 wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 22:50:52 -0800, wrote:


Kind of like Donald "Bone Spurs" Dump loves the military. Loves to
increase its budget at an astronomical rate. Loves to pardon
soldiers convicted in a trial of murdering a prisoner. Loves to use
the military to threaten any and every other country. Has any Dump
family member ever been in the military?


2What an absolutyly dumb question. The military is not there to be
served in, but to protect the families economic interests.

Remember his grandpappy started by selling "road kill" and squatting.


Our Prime Minister's father hid during WW2 so he wouldn't have to be in
the military. How such people can t hen lead a country's military or
choose a qualified defense minister is beyond me. Then again, the
titular head of Canada is actually the Queen. Our current Prime Minister
would be a joke if things weren't so serious.

Cheers


Same tit here and I'm happy to keep it that way when the alternative is a
home grown version of Trump. Oh wait, we have one as PM.

Ads
  #192  
Old January 15th 20, 02:53 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default Really, really dumb

On 1/14/2020 9:32 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/14/2020 8:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 19:36:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/14/2020 6:25 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 17:09:07 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/14/2020 4:06 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:


Proficiency in using the long bow required a lot of
target practice.
This took time, and required that low born yeomen have
the weapons ready
at home.

Agreed.

Frank would have us believe that shooting at targets
is just a game, but
of course it has been promoted for military readiness
throughout
history.

Note that the two propositions are not mutually
exclusive. Yes, target
shooting has historically been promoted for military
readiness. But (for
example) Boy Scouts earning their Rifle merit badge are
never told "This
is in case there's a war." Almost all American target
shooting is for
fun, for competition (i.e. a game) or training for
hunting. (I've done
it just for fun.)

The most common counterexample is police training. But
that wouldn't be
nearly as necessary if we had rational gun control in
this country.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/w...terror-n737551


Your reference article is just a tad misleading as it
refers to the
"U.K." police and states that a large percent are not
armed which is a
nice end run around the fact that in Northern Ireland,
a part of the
U.K., all police are armed.

But Yes, make a law and everything will be O.K. Right?

Do you know about the so called Sullivan Act ?

" The Sullivan Act is a gun control law in New York
State that took
effect in 1911. The law required licenses for New
Yorkers to possess
firearms small enough to be concealed. Private
possession of such
firearms without a license was a misdemeanor, and
carrying them in
public was a felony."

So every is hunky-dory and there has been no gun crime
in the state of
New York since 1911?
So what's your position, John? Abolish all laws?


I am pointing out that your often mentioned gun control
laws do not
necessarily produce what they are intended to produce.


I know that, John. Andrew pulls the same trick from time to
time. Any law you can name gets violated from time to time.

But that certainly doesn't mean we must do away with all
laws. I assume you agree, since you frequently praise the
strict laws in Singapore.


I'm just an observer. People disregard whole areas of law
and yet the ban on machine guns, despite simple attainable
paths to same with widely popular platforms, is largely
obeyed. Where the populace is in general agreement, laws are
obeyed and where not, often not.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


  #193  
Old January 15th 20, 03:09 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default Really, really dumb

On 1/15/2020 4:02 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 January 2020 04:08:57 UTC-5, news18 wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 22:50:52 -0800, wrote:

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 10:08:35 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:45:15 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 8:54:54 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/10/2020 5:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/10/2020 1:08 PM,
wrote:

Tell us all what happens to any state that bans the ownership of
weapons.

No state ever has. It's a right wing fantasy.


Mexico does.

You're allowed to have weapons in Mexico. You're allowed to have
weapons in every other nation on earth.

But no nation on earth allows _all_ types of weapons for _any_ people.
Even though when bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/10/mexico...g-12-year-old-

boy-kills-teacher-injures-several-others/

Maybe they just "need better laws".

The alternative is ... what? Give the kid an AR-15 instead? That
doesn't seem to work well here.

- Frank Krygowski

- Frank Krygowski

I find it interesting that AR-15's seem to be treasured mainly by those
who never had to carry them in earnest. :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

Kind of like Donald "Bone Spurs" Dump loves the military. Loves to
increase its budget at an astronomical rate. Loves to pardon soldiers
convicted in a trial of murdering a prisoner. Loves to use the military
to threaten any and every other country. Has any Dump family member
ever been in the military?


2What an absolutyly dumb question. The military is not there to be served
in, but to protect the families economic interests.

Remember his grandpappy started by selling "road kill" and squatting.


Our Prime Minister's father hid during WW2 so he wouldn't have to be in the military. How such people can t hen lead a country's military or choose a qualified defense minister is beyond me. Then again, the titular head of Canada is actually the Queen. Our current Prime Minister would be a joke if things weren't so serious.

Cheers


Cuba was neutral and IIRC Fidel Castro was in law school
during the war.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


  #194  
Old January 15th 20, 03:33 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default Really, really dumb

On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 9:54:26 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 21:27:19 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 8:45:09 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 22:27:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/14/2020 9:14 PM, jbeattie wrote:

I own guns, including vintage steel guns and spent a lot of time shooting with friends when I was a kid. I had a gun lunatic friend as well as a SWAT officer friend and shot a lot of crazy guns. AR-15s are cool transformer guns and real hobby items. I get it. I just don't view them as religious icons. They should be subject to regulation like every other device used for killing each other, like cars.

And the "religious icons" bit is a big art of the problem. To a sad
number of gun nuts, any mention of any restriction on any type of gun or
ammo is blasphemy. It's not based on data or reason or science or logic.

Gee, it sounds just like the anti-gun fraternity who want to outlaw
the AR-15 because it looks like an assault rifle.


No, its just not a sacred cow. We regulate studded tires but not guns? We can, as a nation, decide based on accurate information, that certain firearms pose an unreasonable risk to the general population. The founding fathers contemplated private ownership of flintlocks for use in well regulated militias and did not foreclose the regulation of easily modifiable, high capacity, rapid firing carbines favored by lunatic mall shooters. Legitimate, law-abiding AR15 owners take a little hit with smaller mags, and maybe a few people at Cinnabon get away while crazy guy is reloading. It seems like a reasonable trade-off.

-- Jay Beattie.


A number of states currently have laws that regulate the possession of
fire arms based on specific physical shape, size, attachments, etc.
For example: Connecticut defines and bans weapons as follows -

Any "selective-fire" firearm capable of fully automatic,
semi-automatic or "burst fire" at the option of the user;
Any semi-automatic centerfire rifle, regardless of the date produced,
that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least
one of the following features: 1) A folding or telescoping stock; 2)
Any grip of the weapon, including a pistol grip, thumbhole stock, or
other stock that would allow an individual to grip the weapon,
resulting in any finger on the trigger hand in addition to the trigger
finger being directly below any portion of the action of the weapon
when firing; 3) A forward pistol grip; 4) A flash suppressor; or 5) A
grenade or flare launcher;

or
A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has: 1) a fixed magazine that
can accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition; or 2) an overall length
of less than 30 inches;

note: there are other conditions which I did not include due to space.
See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assaul..._States#1 989

I have no idea whether this law has been tested in the court but I
believe that it is presently enforced in the state. And I read that
the Maryland's law was upheld in the courts:

The United States Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to the
Maryland ban in November 2017. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th
Circuit in Richmond had upheld the ban, stating that: "[A]ssault
weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second
Amendment." Attorneys general in 21 states and the NRA had asked the
Supreme Court to hear the case.[38]


FYI. https://lawcenter.giffords.org/dunca...pacity-limits/ I haven't looked at the Ninth Circuit docket to see where this case stands.

-- Jay Beattie.
  #195  
Old January 15th 20, 05:53 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Really, really dumb

On 1/14/2020 11:24 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 January 2020 22:36:21 UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/14/2020 10:13 PM, AMuzi wrote:

Here's the world in which we actually live:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...ta-table-8.xls


Note edged weapons beat rifles 5 to 1.


Only if you ignore the vast unknown "type not stated."


--
- Frank Krygowski


So you're saying that the "vast unknown type note stated" were all or mostly firearm related? As you often demand, where's your proof of that?


I'm saying some proportion of those unknowns were the guns we're talking
about. We could speculate on how many, but that might require gasp! math.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #196  
Old January 15th 20, 05:55 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Really, really dumb

On 1/14/2020 11:54 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 21:13:17 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/14/2020 8:13 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

[...]

There are many guns optimized for more civilized uses - shotguns
optimized for hunting birds, long range hunting rifles for elk at 1000
yards, ordinary hunting rifles (like a Ruger 10/22 for example),
competition target rifles, ordinary 0.22s that are good at tin cans,
etc.

The Ruger 10/22 is a nice, practical choice. I bought one myself.
I'm guessing you mention it specifically because you have one or have
used one.

But. It's a semi-automatic weapon. The standard magazine is 10 rounds,
but larger ones are readily available. It does take a much less
powerful cartridge than the AR-15, but, really, it works just the same,
at least from the operator's perspective. Ruger also makes the mini-14,
which is a semi-auto chambered in .223, like the AR-15, but with wood
furniture and no carry handle on top.

Now, you could have chosen any of a multitude of rifles with falling
block, bolt, or pump action, but for *some* reason you chose the 10/22.
Why? Didn't you consider that you and yours might be irrestibly tempted
to hose down the Ohio countryside with semi-auto fire?

Wait. You might have left the evil magazine at home, or thrown it in
the trash, and loaded the rifle by hand, single shot. Easy enough if
your fingers are small. Enquiring minds want to know.


Here's the world in which we actually live:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...ta-table-8.xls

Note edged weapons beat rifles 5 to 1.


Given Frank's battle-cry "ban the AR-15" it is interesting to see that
some 297 murders were commented with rifles, or in other words could
have been commented with an AR-15, amounted to 2.8% of the total
firearm deaths while those commented with hand guns, i.e., pistols,
which Frank never mentions amounted to 64%.


I never mention everything, John. In fact, nobody does.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #197  
Old January 15th 20, 06:10 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Really, really dumb

On 1/15/2020 4:58 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

Here in Canada we have all sorts of gun control laws but they don't seem to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals or soon to be criminals; they just keep or remove them from the hands of law abiding citizens.


Really? Your gun laws don't work?

Look at some comparative data:
https://www.nationmaster.com/country.../Violent-crime

No laws are perfect. But that doesn't mean laws are useless. It looks to
me like Canada's gun laws are doing a pretty good job - or at least, way
better than those of the U.S.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #198  
Old January 15th 20, 11:51 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Really, really dumb

On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 12:10:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/15/2020 4:58 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

Here in Canada we have all sorts of gun control laws but they don't seem to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals or soon to be criminals; they just keep or remove them from the hands of law abiding citizens.


Really? Your gun laws don't work?

Look at some comparative data:
https://www.nationmaster.com/country.../Violent-crime

No laws are perfect. But that doesn't mean laws are useless. It looks to
me like Canada's gun laws are doing a pretty good job - or at least, way
better than those of the U.S.


Yup, make a law and everyrthing will come up roses...

But Frank, if that is true why is it that Vermont, with it's nearly
non existant gun laws has a murder by firearms rate of 1.3/100,000
while Washing D.C. with rather restrictive gun laws has a firearm
murder rate of 18/100,000?
--
cheers,

John B.

  #199  
Old January 15th 20, 11:59 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Really, really dumb

On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 06:33:20 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 9:54:26 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 21:27:19 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 8:45:09 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 22:27:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/14/2020 9:14 PM, jbeattie wrote:

I own guns, including vintage steel guns and spent a lot of time shooting with friends when I was a kid. I had a gun lunatic friend as well as a SWAT officer friend and shot a lot of crazy guns. AR-15s are cool transformer guns and real hobby items. I get it. I just don't view them as religious icons. They should be subject to regulation like every other device used for killing each other, like cars.

And the "religious icons" bit is a big art of the problem. To a sad
number of gun nuts, any mention of any restriction on any type of gun or
ammo is blasphemy. It's not based on data or reason or science or logic.

Gee, it sounds just like the anti-gun fraternity who want to outlaw
the AR-15 because it looks like an assault rifle.

No, its just not a sacred cow. We regulate studded tires but not guns? We can, as a nation, decide based on accurate information, that certain firearms pose an unreasonable risk to the general population. The founding fathers contemplated private ownership of flintlocks for use in well regulated militias and did not foreclose the regulation of easily modifiable, high capacity, rapid firing carbines favored by lunatic mall shooters. Legitimate, law-abiding AR15 owners take a little hit with smaller mags, and maybe a few people at Cinnabon get away while crazy guy is reloading. It seems like a reasonable trade-off.

-- Jay Beattie.


A number of states currently have laws that regulate the possession of
fire arms based on specific physical shape, size, attachments, etc.
For example: Connecticut defines and bans weapons as follows -

Any "selective-fire" firearm capable of fully automatic,
semi-automatic or "burst fire" at the option of the user;
Any semi-automatic centerfire rifle, regardless of the date produced,
that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least
one of the following features: 1) A folding or telescoping stock; 2)
Any grip of the weapon, including a pistol grip, thumbhole stock, or
other stock that would allow an individual to grip the weapon,
resulting in any finger on the trigger hand in addition to the trigger
finger being directly below any portion of the action of the weapon
when firing; 3) A forward pistol grip; 4) A flash suppressor; or 5) A
grenade or flare launcher;

or
A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has: 1) a fixed magazine that
can accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition; or 2) an overall length
of less than 30 inches;

note: there are other conditions which I did not include due to space.
See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assaul..._States#1 989

I have no idea whether this law has been tested in the court but I
believe that it is presently enforced in the state. And I read that
the Maryland's law was upheld in the courts:

The United States Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to the
Maryland ban in November 2017. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th
Circuit in Richmond had upheld the ban, stating that: "[A]ssault
weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second
Amendment." Attorneys general in 21 states and the NRA had asked the
Supreme Court to hear the case.[38]


FYI. https://lawcenter.giffords.org/dunca...pacity-limits/ I haven't looked at the Ninth Circuit docket to see where this case stands.

-- Jay Beattie.


Given that .22 caliber rifles with tube magazines holding more than 10
rounds have been manufactured for years and years the banning of
magazines simply on the number of cartridges held might be a bit
problematic. Note: The Henry rifle, the first lever action, made in
the mid 1800's held 16 rounds :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

  #200  
Old January 16th 20, 12:03 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Uncle Wiggly
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Really, really dumb

On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 1:53:47 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/14/2020 4:24 PM, wrote:
So you don't want someone protecting their home or business against multiple invaders with sufficient ammunition huh?

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...C9DC&FORM=VIRE

Apparently Tom has "good guy with a gun" fantasies. He envisions himself
whipping out an AR-15 from under his trench coat and blowing away those
bad guys. In his fantasy, medals for heroism would follow.

There are many millions of those guns in the U.S. Why wasn't one used to
stop that theft, Tom? How does "good guy with a gun" go wrong so frequently?

And how does Canada get by without far fewer of these things in
circulation? Canada doesn't seem to be at the mercy of armed robbers.
Quite the opposite, in fact.

https://theconversation.com/a-short-...-canada-123959

--
- Frank Krygowski


I keep a police .38 from about 1935 around and in case you are unaware, if someone is closer than 10 feet you can probably kill them before they can even point an AR-15. I don't need guns or knives or bows or arrows but I know how to use them all.

You on the other hand have a sick imagination that you like to imagine others have as well.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
This is just dumb... Uncle Dave Racing 19 September 28th 09 08:58 AM
HOW dumb?? Brimstone[_6_] UK 89 April 6th 09 03:49 PM
this is so dumb brockfisher05 Unicycling 10 December 18th 04 03:38 AM
Dumb question the black rose General 12 October 19th 04 09:37 PM
How dumb am I? Andy P UK 2 September 18th 03 08:37 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.