|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
new bike lane hazard
On Thursday, 5 March 2020 11:45:34 UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/5/2020 8:42 AM, AMuzi wrote: On 3/4/2020 8:19 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 3/4/2020 7:16 PM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 13:42:30 -0800 (PST), " wrote: According to Business Insider (why is a business website/magazine writing about mass shootings?) there were 340 mass shootings and 373 deaths from said shootings in 2018 in the USA.Â* The definition of mass shooting is not exactly settled.Â* Roughly its 4 or more people killed or wounded at about the same time in about the same location.Â* Roughly.Â* Everyone defines it differently.Â* Note, a mass shooting does not mean anyone has to die.Â* Shot and injured is good enough. Bicycle deaths are about 2.5 times more than mass shooting fatalities.Â* Drunk driving deaths are probably 250 times mass shooting deaths.Â* Mass shootings always get lots of attention.Â* But they are really pathetic when it comes to killing people.Â* Cigarettes were/are killing ten or a hundred times more people.Â* Suicides are the number one use of guns for killing people every year. But that is a good use for guns I guess. Yes ciggies killed a lot of people and as a result there isÂ* a move to ban smoking. Mass shootings are vilified and the concept that "if we ban guns there will be no more mass killings" seems to be quite popular. Straw man arguments are also popular. But AFACT, nobody has ever said we should ban all guns, or that banning guns optimized for rapidly firing in combat situations will stop all mass killings. I am merely applying exactly the same reasoning to bicycle deaths, which you admit areÂ* even greater than mass shooting deaths, some 250% greater,Â* and yetÂ* youÂ* leap to defend bicycles. How can that be? Ciggies kill people so cigarettes are bad. Guns kill people so guns are bad. Bicycles kill people so bicycles are good? The logic seems a bit awkward.... to say the least. Logic comes with different levels of sophistication. For a step up, try listing benefits vs. detriments. Regarding benefits of free sale of guns optimized for killing people (as opposed to hunting for meat or trophies, protecting gardens from pests, etc.) what exactly are the benefits? (And how do other countries manage without them?) Benefits:Â* The guns look cool, especially to flabby guys who are afraid to try for the Reserves. The guns can shoot lots of bullets really fast. It's fun for some people to shoot that way. The guns are easy to customize so you can make them even cooler, in your own mind. The guns are a sales gimmick for an industry that sees fewer hunters buying real long guns every year. (And really, that's probably the big one.) Detriments: They tend to be less accurate than many true hunting arms. They're not as reliable as a bolt action long gun. You're paying for features that have no real practical use. They regularly get used to kill bunches of people at once. The benefit to detriment balance for bicycling is far different. AFAICT there has never been a study that found bicycling was a net detriment to health. Cigarettes fail badly at any benefit vs. detriment tests, which is why there are serious restriction on who can buy them, how they can be advertised, where they can be used. There's also massive publicity against their use. Motoring deaths? Yes, they are very regrettable. And partly because of that, weeks of instruction and passing a couple tests are required before you're allowed to operate a motor vehicle on public roads. And there is constant work done to reduce those death counts - an endless succession of design changes and laws. Finally, like it or not, all deaths are not treated equally. If grandma dies of a stroke at 95 in a nursing home, the family is typically sad but accepting. If the same grandma at the same age has her throat slit in a nursing home, there will be hell to pay, and rightly so. Every rational person should understand that, although some gun fans do not. Getting blown away with several other congregation members or fellow students tends to rank very low on the scale of acceptable deaths. sigh. I'll try once more even though you seem willfully in denial based on your fashion sense. Nobody has ever accused me of "fashion" anything. Its not how my mind works. [snip irrelevant matters I did not raise] A perusal of our founding era from original documents will make clear to even the most resistant that our beloved 2d is not written for tin can plinking nor for hunting.Â* The world is miserably and devastatingly full of examples of tyranny over unarmed populations which we will never be. Well, having lots more combat-optimized guns per person sure has stopped those aggressive Canadians massed at our northern border! But regarding well armed populations and tyranny, I recommend _Call Me American_ by Abdi Nor Iftin. It's an autobiography of a guy growing up in Somalia, in the conditions that are still current there. A truly horrifying account of what it's like when there are plenty of unrestricted guns and not enough government. Details on request. -- - Frank Krygowski Okay, I'll bite just this one time on this which will quickly degenerate into yet another anti-gun rant by others. When I was younger I had a LEGITIMATE collection of British Long Guns that spanned the time from the Breech Loading Snider Enfield, a Martini Henry as used in the Boer War, a Lee Enfield No. 1 Mk V rifle (very rare) and a lee Enfield No. V Jungle Carbine, plus a Lee Enfield No.4 sniper rifle from WW2, and a match-grade .22 caliber Lee-Enfield target rifle plus a .22 caliber Lee Enfield training rifle (used a lot in armoury basements for target shooting) all the way to the L1A1 rifle. I also had a legitimate M1 carbine made by Rockola, an AR-15 and few other rifles of historical interest. Then one day the Federal Government of Canada decided to change the rules and a lot of LEGITIMATELY PURCHASED firearms became illegal. They included my Snider Enfield, my Lee-Enfield No. V Jungle Carbine,my M1 carbine, my Ar-15 and my L1A1. Yet it was NOT long guns that were the source of most shootings in Canada, it was pistols smuggled in from the USA and still is. Gun Control is hitting what you aim at. Cheers |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
new bike lane hazard
On 3/5/2020 2:36 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, 5 March 2020 11:45:34 UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 3/5/2020 8:42 AM, AMuzi wrote: On 3/4/2020 8:19 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 3/4/2020 7:16 PM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 13:42:30 -0800 (PST), " wrote: According to Business Insider (why is a business website/magazine writing about mass shootings?) there were 340 mass shootings and 373 deaths from said shootings in 2018 in the USA.Â* The definition of mass shooting is not exactly settled.Â* Roughly its 4 or more people killed or wounded at about the same time in about the same location.Â* Roughly.Â* Everyone defines it differently.Â* Note, a mass shooting does not mean anyone has to die.Â* Shot and injured is good enough. Bicycle deaths are about 2.5 times more than mass shooting fatalities.Â* Drunk driving deaths are probably 250 times mass shooting deaths.Â* Mass shootings always get lots of attention.Â* But they are really pathetic when it comes to killing people.Â* Cigarettes were/are killing ten or a hundred times more people.Â* Suicides are the number one use of guns for killing people every year. But that is a good use for guns I guess. Yes ciggies killed a lot of people and as a result there isÂ* a move to ban smoking. Mass shootings are vilified and the concept that "if we ban guns there will be no more mass killings" seems to be quite popular. Straw man arguments are also popular. But AFACT, nobody has ever said we should ban all guns, or that banning guns optimized for rapidly firing in combat situations will stop all mass killings. I am merely applying exactly the same reasoning to bicycle deaths, which you admit areÂ* even greater than mass shooting deaths, some 250% greater,Â* and yetÂ* youÂ* leap to defend bicycles. How can that be? Ciggies kill people so cigarettes are bad. Guns kill people so guns are bad. Bicycles kill people so bicycles are good? The logic seems a bit awkward.... to say the least. Logic comes with different levels of sophistication. For a step up, try listing benefits vs. detriments. Regarding benefits of free sale of guns optimized for killing people (as opposed to hunting for meat or trophies, protecting gardens from pests, etc.) what exactly are the benefits? (And how do other countries manage without them?) Benefits:Â* The guns look cool, especially to flabby guys who are afraid to try for the Reserves. The guns can shoot lots of bullets really fast. It's fun for some people to shoot that way. The guns are easy to customize so you can make them even cooler, in your own mind. The guns are a sales gimmick for an industry that sees fewer hunters buying real long guns every year. (And really, that's probably the big one.) Detriments: They tend to be less accurate than many true hunting arms. They're not as reliable as a bolt action long gun. You're paying for features that have no real practical use. They regularly get used to kill bunches of people at once. The benefit to detriment balance for bicycling is far different. AFAICT there has never been a study that found bicycling was a net detriment to health. Cigarettes fail badly at any benefit vs. detriment tests, which is why there are serious restriction on who can buy them, how they can be advertised, where they can be used. There's also massive publicity against their use. Motoring deaths? Yes, they are very regrettable. And partly because of that, weeks of instruction and passing a couple tests are required before you're allowed to operate a motor vehicle on public roads. And there is constant work done to reduce those death counts - an endless succession of design changes and laws. Finally, like it or not, all deaths are not treated equally. If grandma dies of a stroke at 95 in a nursing home, the family is typically sad but accepting. If the same grandma at the same age has her throat slit in a nursing home, there will be hell to pay, and rightly so. Every rational person should understand that, although some gun fans do not. Getting blown away with several other congregation members or fellow students tends to rank very low on the scale of acceptable deaths. sigh. I'll try once more even though you seem willfully in denial based on your fashion sense. Nobody has ever accused me of "fashion" anything. Its not how my mind works. [snip irrelevant matters I did not raise] A perusal of our founding era from original documents will make clear to even the most resistant that our beloved 2d is not written for tin can plinking nor for hunting.Â* The world is miserably and devastatingly full of examples of tyranny over unarmed populations which we will never be. Well, having lots more combat-optimized guns per person sure has stopped those aggressive Canadians massed at our northern border! But regarding well armed populations and tyranny, I recommend _Call Me American_ by Abdi Nor Iftin. It's an autobiography of a guy growing up in Somalia, in the conditions that are still current there. A truly horrifying account of what it's like when there are plenty of unrestricted guns and not enough government. Details on request. -- - Frank Krygowski Okay, I'll bite just this one time on this which will quickly degenerate into yet another anti-gun rant by others. When I was younger I had a LEGITIMATE collection of British Long Guns that spanned the time from the Breech Loading Snider Enfield, a Martini Henry as used in the Boer War, a Lee Enfield No. 1 Mk V rifle (very rare) and a lee Enfield No. V Jungle Carbine, plus a Lee Enfield No.4 sniper rifle from WW2, and a match-grade .22 caliber Lee-Enfield target rifle plus a .22 caliber Lee Enfield training rifle (used a lot in armoury basements for target shooting) all the way to the L1A1 rifle. I also had a legitimate M1 carbine made by Rockola, an AR-15 and few other rifles of historical interest. Then one day the Federal Government of Canada decided to change the rules and a lot of LEGITIMATELY PURCHASED firearms became illegal. They included my Snider Enfield, my Lee-Enfield No. V Jungle Carbine,my M1 carbine, my Ar-15 and my L1A1. Yet it was NOT long guns that were the source of most shootings in Canada, it was pistols smuggled in from the USA and still is. And let me shock you by mostly agreeing with you. I have no serious problem with most of those guns, especially the ones of historic interest. Obviously, I do approve of restrictions on things like the AR-15. My understanding is you can still own one; you just have to go through a reasonable permitting process. That's unlike the U.S. where you can buy one to shoot down the flying pink elephants that are attacking your house. But I wonder about your interpretation of the law. About the L1A1, Wikipedia claims "In Canada, all variants of the FN-FAL are classified as prohibited firearms, under Weapons Prohibition Order No. 13 in 1995. Being a variant of the FAL, the L1A1 cannot be legally owned or imported except under limited circumstances. Those who owned a 12.5 prohibited firearm prior to prohibition can continue to possess and acquire weapons banned under this order." I notice what you say about pistols smuggled in from the USA. Yeah, how about that? -- - Frank Krygowski |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
new bike lane hazard
On Thursday, 5 March 2020 16:41:26 UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/5/2020 2:36 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Thursday, 5 March 2020 11:45:34 UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 3/5/2020 8:42 AM, AMuzi wrote: On 3/4/2020 8:19 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 3/4/2020 7:16 PM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 13:42:30 -0800 (PST), " wrote: According to Business Insider (why is a business website/magazine writing about mass shootings?) there were 340 mass shootings and 373 deaths from said shootings in 2018 in the USA.Â* The definition of mass shooting is not exactly settled.Â* Roughly its 4 or more people killed or wounded at about the same time in about the same location.Â* Roughly.Â* Everyone defines it differently.Â* Note, a mass shooting does not mean anyone has to die.Â* Shot and injured is good enough. Bicycle deaths are about 2.5 times more than mass shooting fatalities.Â* Drunk driving deaths are probably 250 times mass shooting deaths.Â* Mass shootings always get lots of attention.Â* But they are really pathetic when it comes to killing people.Â* Cigarettes were/are killing ten or a hundred times more people.Â* Suicides are the number one use of guns for killing people every year. But that is a good use for guns I guess. Yes ciggies killed a lot of people and as a result there isÂ* a move to ban smoking. Mass shootings are vilified and the concept that "if we ban guns there will be no more mass killings" seems to be quite popular. Straw man arguments are also popular. But AFACT, nobody has ever said we should ban all guns, or that banning guns optimized for rapidly firing in combat situations will stop all mass killings. I am merely applying exactly the same reasoning to bicycle deaths, which you admit areÂ* even greater than mass shooting deaths, some 250% greater,Â* and yetÂ* youÂ* leap to defend bicycles. How can that be? Ciggies kill people so cigarettes are bad. Guns kill people so guns are bad. Bicycles kill people so bicycles are good? The logic seems a bit awkward.... to say the least. Logic comes with different levels of sophistication. For a step up, try listing benefits vs. detriments. Regarding benefits of free sale of guns optimized for killing people (as opposed to hunting for meat or trophies, protecting gardens from pests, etc.) what exactly are the benefits? (And how do other countries manage without them?) Benefits:Â* The guns look cool, especially to flabby guys who are afraid to try for the Reserves. The guns can shoot lots of bullets really fast. It's fun for some people to shoot that way. The guns are easy to customize so you can make them even cooler, in your own mind. The guns are a sales gimmick for an industry that sees fewer hunters buying real long guns every year. (And really, that's probably the big one.) Detriments: They tend to be less accurate than many true hunting arms. They're not as reliable as a bolt action long gun. You're paying for features that have no real practical use. They regularly get used to kill bunches of people at once. The benefit to detriment balance for bicycling is far different. AFAICT there has never been a study that found bicycling was a net detriment to health. Cigarettes fail badly at any benefit vs. detriment tests, which is why there are serious restriction on who can buy them, how they can be advertised, where they can be used. There's also massive publicity against their use. Motoring deaths? Yes, they are very regrettable. And partly because of that, weeks of instruction and passing a couple tests are required before you're allowed to operate a motor vehicle on public roads. And there is constant work done to reduce those death counts - an endless succession of design changes and laws. Finally, like it or not, all deaths are not treated equally. If grandma dies of a stroke at 95 in a nursing home, the family is typically sad but accepting. If the same grandma at the same age has her throat slit in a nursing home, there will be hell to pay, and rightly so. Every rational person should understand that, although some gun fans do not. Getting blown away with several other congregation members or fellow students tends to rank very low on the scale of acceptable deaths. sigh. I'll try once more even though you seem willfully in denial based on your fashion sense. Nobody has ever accused me of "fashion" anything. Its not how my mind works. [snip irrelevant matters I did not raise] A perusal of our founding era from original documents will make clear to even the most resistant that our beloved 2d is not written for tin can plinking nor for hunting.Â* The world is miserably and devastatingly full of examples of tyranny over unarmed populations which we will never be. Well, having lots more combat-optimized guns per person sure has stopped those aggressive Canadians massed at our northern border! But regarding well armed populations and tyranny, I recommend _Call Me American_ by Abdi Nor Iftin. It's an autobiography of a guy growing up in Somalia, in the conditions that are still current there. A truly horrifying account of what it's like when there are plenty of unrestricted guns and not enough government. Details on request. -- - Frank Krygowski Okay, I'll bite just this one time on this which will quickly degenerate into yet another anti-gun rant by others. When I was younger I had a LEGITIMATE collection of British Long Guns that spanned the time from the Breech Loading Snider Enfield, a Martini Henry as used in the Boer War, a Lee Enfield No. 1 Mk V rifle (very rare) and a lee Enfield No. V Jungle Carbine, plus a Lee Enfield No.4 sniper rifle from WW2, and a match-grade .22 caliber Lee-Enfield target rifle plus a .22 caliber Lee Enfield training rifle (used a lot in armoury basements for target shooting) all the way to the L1A1 rifle. I also had a legitimate M1 carbine made by Rockola, an AR-15 and few other rifles of historical interest. Then one day the Federal Government of Canada decided to change the rules and a lot of LEGITIMATELY PURCHASED firearms became illegal. They included my Snider Enfield, my Lee-Enfield No. V Jungle Carbine,my M1 carbine, my Ar-15 and my L1A1. Yet it was NOT long guns that were the source of most shootings in Canada, it was pistols smuggled in from the USA and still is. And let me shock you by mostly agreeing with you. I have no serious problem with most of those guns, especially the ones of historic interest.. Obviously, I do approve of restrictions on things like the AR-15. My understanding is you can still own one; you just have to go through a reasonable permitting process. That's unlike the U.S. where you can buy one to shoot down the flying pink elephants that are attacking your house.. But I wonder about your interpretation of the law. About the L1A1, Wikipedia claims "In Canada, all variants of the FN-FAL are classified as prohibited firearms, under Weapons Prohibition Order No. 13 in 1995. Being a variant of the FAL, the L1A1 cannot be legally owned or imported except under limited circumstances. Those who owned a 12.5 prohibited firearm prior to prohibition can continue to possess and acquire weapons banned under this order." I notice what you say about pistols smuggled in from the USA. Yeah, how about that? -- - Frank Krygowski The law I was talking about came out AFTER I LEGALLY purchased my L1A1 which was a semi-automatic rifle at the time of purchase. There are a few parts that are changed or missing in the semi-automatic version that prevented it from being used in a full-auto mode. Cheers |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
new bike lane hazard
On 3/5/2020 4:15 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, 5 March 2020 16:41:26 UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 3/5/2020 2:36 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Thursday, 5 March 2020 11:45:34 UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 3/5/2020 8:42 AM, AMuzi wrote: On 3/4/2020 8:19 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 3/4/2020 7:16 PM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 13:42:30 -0800 (PST), " wrote: According to Business Insider (why is a business website/magazine writing about mass shootings?) there were 340 mass shootings and 373 deaths from said shootings in 2018 in the USA. The definition of mass shooting is not exactly settled. Roughly its 4 or more people killed or wounded at about the same time in about the same location. Roughly. Everyone defines it differently. Note, a mass shooting does not mean anyone has to die. Shot and injured is good enough. Bicycle deaths are about 2.5 times more than mass shooting fatalities. Drunk driving deaths are probably 250 times mass shooting deaths. Mass shootings always get lots of attention. But they are really pathetic when it comes to killing people. Cigarettes were/are killing ten or a hundred times more people. Suicides are the number one use of guns for killing people every year. But that is a good use for guns I guess. Yes ciggies killed a lot of people and as a result there is a move to ban smoking. Mass shootings are vilified and the concept that "if we ban guns there will be no more mass killings" seems to be quite popular. Straw man arguments are also popular. But AFACT, nobody has ever said we should ban all guns, or that banning guns optimized for rapidly firing in combat situations will stop all mass killings. I am merely applying exactly the same reasoning to bicycle deaths, which you admit are even greater than mass shooting deaths, some 250% greater, and yet you leap to defend bicycles. How can that be? Ciggies kill people so cigarettes are bad. Guns kill people so guns are bad. Bicycles kill people so bicycles are good? The logic seems a bit awkward.... to say the least. Logic comes with different levels of sophistication. For a step up, try listing benefits vs. detriments. Regarding benefits of free sale of guns optimized for killing people (as opposed to hunting for meat or trophies, protecting gardens from pests, etc.) what exactly are the benefits? (And how do other countries manage without them?) Benefits: The guns look cool, especially to flabby guys who are afraid to try for the Reserves. The guns can shoot lots of bullets really fast. It's fun for some people to shoot that way. The guns are easy to customize so you can make them even cooler, in your own mind. The guns are a sales gimmick for an industry that sees fewer hunters buying real long guns every year. (And really, that's probably the big one.) Detriments: They tend to be less accurate than many true hunting arms. They're not as reliable as a bolt action long gun. You're paying for features that have no real practical use. They regularly get used to kill bunches of people at once. The benefit to detriment balance for bicycling is far different. AFAICT there has never been a study that found bicycling was a net detriment to health. Cigarettes fail badly at any benefit vs. detriment tests, which is why there are serious restriction on who can buy them, how they can be advertised, where they can be used. There's also massive publicity against their use. Motoring deaths? Yes, they are very regrettable. And partly because of that, weeks of instruction and passing a couple tests are required before you're allowed to operate a motor vehicle on public roads. And there is constant work done to reduce those death counts - an endless succession of design changes and laws. Finally, like it or not, all deaths are not treated equally. If grandma dies of a stroke at 95 in a nursing home, the family is typically sad but accepting. If the same grandma at the same age has her throat slit in a nursing home, there will be hell to pay, and rightly so. Every rational person should understand that, although some gun fans do not. Getting blown away with several other congregation members or fellow students tends to rank very low on the scale of acceptable deaths. sigh. I'll try once more even though you seem willfully in denial based on your fashion sense. Nobody has ever accused me of "fashion" anything. Its not how my mind works. [snip irrelevant matters I did not raise] A perusal of our founding era from original documents will make clear to even the most resistant that our beloved 2d is not written for tin can plinking nor for hunting. The world is miserably and devastatingly full of examples of tyranny over unarmed populations which we will never be. Well, having lots more combat-optimized guns per person sure has stopped those aggressive Canadians massed at our northern border! But regarding well armed populations and tyranny, I recommend _Call Me American_ by Abdi Nor Iftin. It's an autobiography of a guy growing up in Somalia, in the conditions that are still current there. A truly horrifying account of what it's like when there are plenty of unrestricted guns and not enough government. Details on request. -- - Frank Krygowski Okay, I'll bite just this one time on this which will quickly degenerate into yet another anti-gun rant by others. When I was younger I had a LEGITIMATE collection of British Long Guns that spanned the time from the Breech Loading Snider Enfield, a Martini Henry as used in the Boer War, a Lee Enfield No. 1 Mk V rifle (very rare) and a lee Enfield No. V Jungle Carbine, plus a Lee Enfield No.4 sniper rifle from WW2, and a match-grade .22 caliber Lee-Enfield target rifle plus a .22 caliber Lee Enfield training rifle (used a lot in armoury basements for target shooting) all the way to the L1A1 rifle. I also had a legitimate M1 carbine made by Rockola, an AR-15 and few other rifles of historical interest. Then one day the Federal Government of Canada decided to change the rules and a lot of LEGITIMATELY PURCHASED firearms became illegal. They included my Snider Enfield, my Lee-Enfield No. V Jungle Carbine,my M1 carbine, my Ar-15 and my L1A1. Yet it was NOT long guns that were the source of most shootings in Canada, it was pistols smuggled in from the USA and still is. And let me shock you by mostly agreeing with you. I have no serious problem with most of those guns, especially the ones of historic interest. Obviously, I do approve of restrictions on things like the AR-15. My understanding is you can still own one; you just have to go through a reasonable permitting process. That's unlike the U.S. where you can buy one to shoot down the flying pink elephants that are attacking your house. But I wonder about your interpretation of the law. About the L1A1, Wikipedia claims "In Canada, all variants of the FN-FAL are classified as prohibited firearms, under Weapons Prohibition Order No. 13 in 1995. Being a variant of the FAL, the L1A1 cannot be legally owned or imported except under limited circumstances. Those who owned a 12.5 prohibited firearm prior to prohibition can continue to possess and acquire weapons banned under this order." I notice what you say about pistols smuggled in from the USA. Yeah, how about that? -- - Frank Krygowski The law I was talking about came out AFTER I LEGALLY purchased my L1A1 which was a semi-automatic rifle at the time of purchase. There are a few parts that are changed or missing in the semi-automatic version that prevented it from being used in a full-auto mode. Cheers It's very fashionable to bemoan AR15 (.223) and other modern lightweight rifles as magic and more deadly than bigger more powerful (.308) classic formats. Fashion is a weird force. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
new bike lane hazard
On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 11:07:10 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote: On Thursday, March 5, 2020 at 3:03:26 AM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: Actually not. The AR-15 type is used in target shooting. BCM sells an AR-15 type that shoots Minute of angle groups at 100 yards right out of the box, and they sell a little better model that shuts sub MOA groups. I'm a shooter and I will say this outright - there's no day on Earth that you were ever able to hold one minute of angle. Even with a telescopic sight the crosshairs cover the V ring at 100 yards. Tom, you must be hallucinating. I had a part time business while in the A,F. building precision varmint rifles and I would guarantee, and provide a target and reloading data, for a maximum of 1 MOA for every gun I built, When you were in the Air Force the standard rifle was an M1A1 carbine which might be able to hit the target at 50 yards. Nope. Again you just don't know what you were talking about. True, when I enlisted we "qualified" with the M-1 but certainly by the time Vietnam came along the standard was the M-16. And how do I know? Well they issued me one when I cleared into Nha Trang AFB. -- Cheers, John B. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
new bike lane hazard
On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 11:25:40 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote: On Thursday, 5 March 2020 14:07:13 UTC-5, Tom Kunich wrote: On Thursday, March 5, 2020 at 3:03:26 AM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: Actually not. The AR-15 type is used in target shooting. BCM sells an AR-15 type that shoots Minute of angle groups at 100 yards right out of the box, and they sell a little better model that shuts sub MOA groups. I'm a shooter and I will say this outright - there's no day on Earth that you were ever able to hold one minute of angle. Even with a telescopic sight the crosshairs cover the V ring at 100 yards. When you were in the Air Force the standard rifle was an M1A1 carbine which might be able to hit the target at 50 yards. Sorry Old Boy but that's absolutely false (what else is new?)about the accuracy of the M1 carbine. I had an M1 carbine made by Rockola and that carbine could hit a tin can bouncing down a steep embankment, in a gravel pit, at 100 yards without problem. Are you sure that the standard RIFLE wasn't the M1 GARAND which is a totally different weapon and cartridge from the M1 Carbine? No, the Air Force standard weapon was the M-1 carbine until Gen. Curtis E. Lemay came along and he got the M-16 made the standard A.F. weapon. Cheers -- Cheers, John B. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
new bike lane hazard
On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 11:34:58 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote: On Thursday, March 5, 2020 at 11:25:43 AM UTC-8, Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Thursday, 5 March 2020 14:07:13 UTC-5, Tom Kunich wrote: On Thursday, March 5, 2020 at 3:03:26 AM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: Actually not. The AR-15 type is used in target shooting. BCM sells an AR-15 type that shoots Minute of angle groups at 100 yards right out of the box, and they sell a little better model that shuts sub MOA groups. I'm a shooter and I will say this outright - there's no day on Earth that you were ever able to hold one minute of angle. Even with a telescopic sight the crosshairs cover the V ring at 100 yards. When you were in the Air Force the standard rifle was an M1A1 carbine which might be able to hit the target at 50 yards. Sorry Old Boy but that's absolutely false (what else is new?)about the accuracy of the M1 carbine. I had an M1 carbine made by Rockola and that carbine could hit a tin can bouncing down a steep embankment, in a gravel pit, at 100 yards without problem. Are you sure that the standard RIFLE wasn't the M1 GARAND which is a totally different weapon and cartridge from the M1 Carbine? Cheers Firstly I would like to know how you could hit a damn thing with an M1 carbine since they used a .30 caliber pistol round 7.62 x 33mm that had no range and a trajectory like a rainbow? You keep flaunting your ignorance. the .30 caliber round used in the M-1 carbine was developed specifically for that weapon. Not for a pistol. The M1 Garand was a 30-06 that was good up to 200 yards with match ammo. Again you flaunt your stupidity. I shot on the Base Rifle team for a bit and I have fired the M- Garand over 300 and 500 yard ranges in matches. At the National Matches that shoot 1,000 yard matches... with iron sights. -- Cheers, John B. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
new bike lane hazard
On Thursday, March 5, 2020 at 3:22:03 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 11:34:58 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich wrote: On Thursday, March 5, 2020 at 11:25:43 AM UTC-8, Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Thursday, 5 March 2020 14:07:13 UTC-5, Tom Kunich wrote: On Thursday, March 5, 2020 at 3:03:26 AM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: Actually not. The AR-15 type is used in target shooting. BCM sells an AR-15 type that shoots Minute of angle groups at 100 yards right out of the box, and they sell a little better model that shuts sub MOA groups. I'm a shooter and I will say this outright - there's no day on Earth that you were ever able to hold one minute of angle. Even with a telescopic sight the crosshairs cover the V ring at 100 yards. When you were in the Air Force the standard rifle was an M1A1 carbine which might be able to hit the target at 50 yards. Sorry Old Boy but that's absolutely false (what else is new?)about the accuracy of the M1 carbine. I had an M1 carbine made by Rockola and that carbine could hit a tin can bouncing down a steep embankment, in a gravel pit, at 100 yards without problem. Are you sure that the standard RIFLE wasn't the M1 GARAND which is a totally different weapon and cartridge from the M1 Carbine? Cheers Firstly I would like to know how you could hit a damn thing with an M1 carbine since they used a .30 caliber pistol round 7.62 x 33mm that had no range and a trajectory like a rainbow? You keep flaunting your ignorance. the .30 caliber round used in the M-1 carbine was developed specifically for that weapon. Not for a pistol. The M1 Garand was a 30-06 that was good up to 200 yards with match ammo. Again you flaunt your stupidity. I shot on the Base Rifle team for a bit and I have fired the M- Garand over 300 and 500 yard ranges in matches. At the National Matches that shoot 1,000 yard matches... with iron sights. -- Cheers, John B. Tell everyone here how large the targets are at 1,000 yards. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
new bike lane hazard
On 3/5/2020 5:15 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, 5 March 2020 16:41:26 UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 3/5/2020 2:36 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Thursday, 5 March 2020 11:45:34 UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 3/5/2020 8:42 AM, AMuzi wrote: On 3/4/2020 8:19 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 3/4/2020 7:16 PM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 13:42:30 -0800 (PST), " wrote: According to Business Insider (why is a business website/magazine writing about mass shootings?) there were 340 mass shootings and 373 deaths from said shootings in 2018 in the USA.Â* The definition of mass shooting is not exactly settled.Â* Roughly its 4 or more people killed or wounded at about the same time in about the same location.Â* Roughly.Â* Everyone defines it differently.Â* Note, a mass shooting does not mean anyone has to die.Â* Shot and injured is good enough. Bicycle deaths are about 2.5 times more than mass shooting fatalities.Â* Drunk driving deaths are probably 250 times mass shooting deaths.Â* Mass shootings always get lots of attention.Â* But they are really pathetic when it comes to killing people.Â* Cigarettes were/are killing ten or a hundred times more people.Â* Suicides are the number one use of guns for killing people every year. But that is a good use for guns I guess. Yes ciggies killed a lot of people and as a result there isÂ* a move to ban smoking. Mass shootings are vilified and the concept that "if we ban guns there will be no more mass killings" seems to be quite popular. Straw man arguments are also popular. But AFACT, nobody has ever said we should ban all guns, or that banning guns optimized for rapidly firing in combat situations will stop all mass killings. I am merely applying exactly the same reasoning to bicycle deaths, which you admit areÂ* even greater than mass shooting deaths, some 250% greater,Â* and yetÂ* youÂ* leap to defend bicycles. How can that be? Ciggies kill people so cigarettes are bad. Guns kill people so guns are bad. Bicycles kill people so bicycles are good? The logic seems a bit awkward.... to say the least. Logic comes with different levels of sophistication. For a step up, try listing benefits vs. detriments. Regarding benefits of free sale of guns optimized for killing people (as opposed to hunting for meat or trophies, protecting gardens from pests, etc.) what exactly are the benefits? (And how do other countries manage without them?) Benefits:Â* The guns look cool, especially to flabby guys who are afraid to try for the Reserves. The guns can shoot lots of bullets really fast. It's fun for some people to shoot that way. The guns are easy to customize so you can make them even cooler, in your own mind. The guns are a sales gimmick for an industry that sees fewer hunters buying real long guns every year. (And really, that's probably the big one.) Detriments: They tend to be less accurate than many true hunting arms. They're not as reliable as a bolt action long gun. You're paying for features that have no real practical use. They regularly get used to kill bunches of people at once. The benefit to detriment balance for bicycling is far different. AFAICT there has never been a study that found bicycling was a net detriment to health. Cigarettes fail badly at any benefit vs. detriment tests, which is why there are serious restriction on who can buy them, how they can be advertised, where they can be used. There's also massive publicity against their use. Motoring deaths? Yes, they are very regrettable. And partly because of that, weeks of instruction and passing a couple tests are required before you're allowed to operate a motor vehicle on public roads. And there is constant work done to reduce those death counts - an endless succession of design changes and laws. Finally, like it or not, all deaths are not treated equally. If grandma dies of a stroke at 95 in a nursing home, the family is typically sad but accepting. If the same grandma at the same age has her throat slit in a nursing home, there will be hell to pay, and rightly so. Every rational person should understand that, although some gun fans do not. Getting blown away with several other congregation members or fellow students tends to rank very low on the scale of acceptable deaths. sigh. I'll try once more even though you seem willfully in denial based on your fashion sense. Nobody has ever accused me of "fashion" anything. Its not how my mind works. [snip irrelevant matters I did not raise] A perusal of our founding era from original documents will make clear to even the most resistant that our beloved 2d is not written for tin can plinking nor for hunting.Â* The world is miserably and devastatingly full of examples of tyranny over unarmed populations which we will never be. Well, having lots more combat-optimized guns per person sure has stopped those aggressive Canadians massed at our northern border! But regarding well armed populations and tyranny, I recommend _Call Me American_ by Abdi Nor Iftin. It's an autobiography of a guy growing up in Somalia, in the conditions that are still current there. A truly horrifying account of what it's like when there are plenty of unrestricted guns and not enough government. Details on request. -- - Frank Krygowski Okay, I'll bite just this one time on this which will quickly degenerate into yet another anti-gun rant by others. When I was younger I had a LEGITIMATE collection of British Long Guns that spanned the time from the Breech Loading Snider Enfield, a Martini Henry as used in the Boer War, a Lee Enfield No. 1 Mk V rifle (very rare) and a lee Enfield No. V Jungle Carbine, plus a Lee Enfield No.4 sniper rifle from WW2, and a match-grade .22 caliber Lee-Enfield target rifle plus a .22 caliber Lee Enfield training rifle (used a lot in armoury basements for target shooting) all the way to the L1A1 rifle. I also had a legitimate M1 carbine made by Rockola, an AR-15 and few other rifles of historical interest. Then one day the Federal Government of Canada decided to change the rules and a lot of LEGITIMATELY PURCHASED firearms became illegal. They included my Snider Enfield, my Lee-Enfield No. V Jungle Carbine,my M1 carbine, my Ar-15 and my L1A1. Yet it was NOT long guns that were the source of most shootings in Canada, it was pistols smuggled in from the USA and still is. And let me shock you by mostly agreeing with you. I have no serious problem with most of those guns, especially the ones of historic interest. Obviously, I do approve of restrictions on things like the AR-15. My understanding is you can still own one; you just have to go through a reasonable permitting process. That's unlike the U.S. where you can buy one to shoot down the flying pink elephants that are attacking your house. But I wonder about your interpretation of the law. About the L1A1, Wikipedia claims "In Canada, all variants of the FN-FAL are classified as prohibited firearms, under Weapons Prohibition Order No. 13 in 1995. Being a variant of the FAL, the L1A1 cannot be legally owned or imported except under limited circumstances. Those who owned a 12.5 prohibited firearm prior to prohibition can continue to possess and acquire weapons banned under this order." I notice what you say about pistols smuggled in from the USA. Yeah, how about that? -- - Frank Krygowski The law I was talking about came out AFTER I LEGALLY purchased my L1A1 which was a semi-automatic rifle at the time of purchase. There are a few parts that are changed or missing in the semi-automatic version that prevented it from being used in a full-auto mode. Again, what I read is: "Those who owned a 12.5 prohibited firearm prior to prohibition can continue to possess and acquire weapons banned under this order." Other references seem to say the same thing: Prior owners are under a "grandfather" clause. It seems that should have applied to you, no? -- - Frank Krygowski |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
new bike lane hazard
On Thursday, March 5, 2020 at 3:15:07 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 11:07:10 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich wrote: On Thursday, March 5, 2020 at 3:03:26 AM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: Actually not. The AR-15 type is used in target shooting. BCM sells an AR-15 type that shoots Minute of angle groups at 100 yards right out of the box, and they sell a little better model that shuts sub MOA groups. I'm a shooter and I will say this outright - there's no day on Earth that you were ever able to hold one minute of angle. Even with a telescopic sight the crosshairs cover the V ring at 100 yards. Tom, you must be hallucinating. I had a part time business while in the A,F. building precision varmint rifles and I would guarantee, and provide a target and reloading data, for a maximum of 1 MOA for every gun I built, When you were in the Air Force the standard rifle was an M1A1 carbine which might be able to hit the target at 50 yards. Nope. Again you just don't know what you were talking about. True, when I enlisted we "qualified" with the M-1 but certainly by the time Vietnam came along the standard was the M-16. And how do I know? Well they issued me one when I cleared into Nha Trang AFB. (eyes rolling) the AF standard arm until half way through Vietnam was the M1A1 carbine. Keep up making it deeper. I was out of the AF before they changed over. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cop Blocks Bike Lane To Ticket Cyclists For Not Using Lane | Jens Müller[_3_] | Social Issues | 14 | November 6th 10 01:41 AM |
Re. VicRoads bike hazard - an update | Halcyon | Australia | 8 | October 2nd 07 04:02 PM |
New bike hazard- courtesy of VicRoads | Halcyon | Australia | 41 | September 30th 07 09:41 PM |
Station St bike lane Bonbeach: cars parked in bike lane | AndrewJ | Australia | 8 | March 30th 06 10:37 AM |
Bike Lane vs Wide outside Lane - benefit to AUTOS? | [email protected] | Techniques | 29 | June 8th 05 10:07 PM |